Mishkin v. ICON PLC

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Gita Mishkin, No. CV-24-01423-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 ICON PLC, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 On January 30, 2025, the court dismissed without leave to amend plaintiff Gita 16 Mishkin’s claim under the Equal Pay Act. (Doc. 34 at 4-5.) On February 27, 2025, Mishkin 17 filed a “FRCP Rule 54(b) Motion to Reinstate Equal Pay Act Claim.” (Doc. 40.) Defendant 18 Pharmaceutical Research Associates Inc. then filed a “notice” stating Local Rule 7.2(g)’s 19 fourteen-day deadline for a motion for reconsideration meant Mishkin’s motion was 20 untimely. (Doc. 41.) Mishkin then filed another document explaining she 21 does not seek reconsideration of the dismissal of her EPA claim based upon the facts in her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) cited by the Court as 22 insufficient under FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) but instead seeks reinstatement based upon other allegations in her FAC that were not the basis for the dismissal. 23 24 (Doc. 42 at 2.) According to Mishkin, this type of request is not subject to Local Rule 7.2(g) 25 because she is seeking “reinstatement” not “reconsideration.” Mishkin also argues Rule 26 54(b) allows a court to revise its orders “at any time before the entry of judgment of a 27 judgment adjudicating all the claims.” Because of that language, any attempt to apply Local 28 Rule 7.2(g) to her request would be “incompatible with the FRCP.” (Doc. 42 at 3.) 1 Mishkin’s claim that she is not seeking reconsideration of the prior order is 2|| incorrect. And the court is skeptical of her interpretation that Local Rule 7.2(g) is 3 || incompatible with the language of Rule 54(b). See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sumo-Nan LLC, 4|| No. CV 14-00520 DKW-KSC, 2015 WL 5209345, at *1 (D. Haw. Sept. 4, 2015) (“There 5 || is nothing in Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) that limits the District Court’s authority to promulgate a 6|| rule [addressed to motions for reconsideration] that includes timeliness requirements.”). But there is no need to address the impact of Local Rule 7.2(g) because that rule does not 8 || purport to impose a complete bar on considering untimely motions for reconsideration. 9|| L.R. 7.2(g) (requiring motions be filed within fourteen days “[a]bsent good cause”). And 10 || on its merits, Mishkin’s motion fails. 11 The EPA claim was dismissed because Mishkin had not alleged she and the male 12 || comparators were employed on the date the commissions became payable, a requirement 13 || for payment under the compensation plan at issue. (Doc. 34 at 2, 4-5.) Having resigned before any of the commissions were paid to males, Mishkin had not plausibly alleged she 15 || was paid different wages for equal work. (Doc. 34 at 4.) Mishkin’s motion to amend her 16 || EPA claim does not address this issue. Instead Mishkin alleges that “even if [she] had not 17 || resigned, Defendant had already taken away [her] earned wages.” (Doc. 40 at 28.) But again, the EPA claim was dismissed because Mishkin’s own allegations indicated she was not eligible for payment of those alleged “earned wages,” while the male comparators were 20 || eligible. Mishkin is not entitled to pursue her EPA claim. 21 IT IS ORDERED the Motion (Doc. 40) is DENIED. 22 Dated this 17th day of March, 2025. 23 fy Vo MM. | 4 (

Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 26 United States District Judge 27 28

_2-