ORDER

NEIL V. WAKE, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 33) and the parties' accompanying briefs. The Amended Complaint (Doc. 32) pleads claims for employment discrimination against all Defendants under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Arizona Civil Rights Act. As to the two alleged employers, Genesis Corporate Solutions, LLC, and Yash Technologies, Inc., Defendants' challenge under the "first to file" rule is mooted by the dismissal of the employers' own preemptive action filed in the Northern District of Illinois. (Doc. 41-1.) That part of the Motion will be denied.

The Amended Complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted as against Defendant Arauz because only employers, not supervisors or co-employees, can be liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Arizona Civil Rights Act. Craig v. M & O Agencies, Inc., 496 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2007); De La Torre v. Merck Enters., Inc., 540 F.Supp.2d 1066, 1079 n.10 (D. Ariz. 2008).

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend her complaint again to try to plead other claims against Arauz. She has already amended her complaint once. She will be granted leave only once more to try to plead claims against Arauz. Plaintiff is reminded that allegations must have enough factual content to be understood and fairly responded to. Any amended complaint must also allege the time or times of any new actionable conduct, as there may be a fair question of statutes of limitations. Allegations of place of conduct are within the knowledge of Plaintiff and should be alleged with enough detail to establish Arizona personal jurisdiction for claims against Arauz.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 33) is denied as to Defendants Genesis Corporate Solutions, LLC, and Yash Technologies, Inc., and granted as to Defendant Arauz with leave to file an amended complaint as to Defendant Arauz by January 8, 2016.