CARRASCO v. EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY, CV-14-01585-PHX-DGC. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20140819625
Visitors: 4
Filed: Aug. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 18, 2014
Summary: ORDER DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge. Defendant The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society has filed a motion to dismiss. Doc. 4. The Court will deny the motion. Defendant's motion does not cite a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure upon which dismissal could be granted. Instead of relying on Rule 12(b), Defendant argues that Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because she agreed to binding arbitration. Doc. 4 at 2. In support, Defendant cites facts outside of the pleadings, as does
Summary: ORDER DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge. Defendant The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society has filed a motion to dismiss. Doc. 4. The Court will deny the motion. Defendant's motion does not cite a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure upon which dismissal could be granted. Instead of relying on Rule 12(b), Defendant argues that Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because she agreed to binding arbitration. Doc. 4 at 2. In support, Defendant cites facts outside of the pleadings, as does ..
More
ORDER
DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge.
Defendant The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society has filed a motion to dismiss. Doc. 4. The Court will deny the motion.
Defendant's motion does not cite a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure upon which dismissal could be granted. Instead of relying on Rule 12(b), Defendant argues that Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because she agreed to binding arbitration. Doc. 4 at 2. In support, Defendant cites facts outside of the pleadings, as does Plaintiff's response. The Court will not consider these facts. See Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 925 (9th Cir. 2001) (refusing to consider matters outside the pleadings in deciding motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint). With the extra-pleading facts disregarded, the Court finds no basis in the motion for dismissing Plaintiff's claim.1
The Court will not construe Defendant's motion as a motion to compel arbitration because the motion does not seek that relief.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 4) is denied.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff asserts that the Court should treat Defendant's motion as one for summary judgment because the Court has been asked to consider matters outside the pleading. Doc. 5 at 1. But summary judgment is a merits determination and Defendant's argument does not address the merits of Plaintiff's complaint. The Court therefore will not convert Defendant's motion to one for summary judgment.
Source: Leagle
