Turner v. State of Alabama Administrative Office of Courts et al
Order DENYING the 6 MOTION to Dismiss filed by State of Alabama Administrative Office of Courts. The 5 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Phillip Caldwell Adams, Carmen Bosch is DENIED IN PART as to its untimeliness argument. Plaintiff's Response to the additional argument raised in the motion is due by 10/18/2011. Replies due by 10/25/2011. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 10/4/2011. (tgw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
TRACEY F. TURNER,
STATE OF ALABAMA,
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF
COURTS, et al.,
) CIVIL ACTION 11-0298-WS-M
The defendants have filed motions to dismiss. (Docs. 5, 6). Both motions
question whether the complaint was filed within 90 days of receipt of the EEOC’s rightto-sue letter. As the defendants concede, the complaint does not state when the plaintiff
received the letter. The defendants merely suspect it may have been more than 90 days
before the complaint was filed, since the complaint says the letter was issued 98 days
before suit was filed.
The defendants assert no failure to comply with applicable pleading rules. If “a
claim has been stated adequately [under those rules], it may be supported by showing any
set of facts consistent with the complaint.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
563 (2007) (explaining Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). That is, “[a]
motion to dismiss may be granted only when a defendant demonstrates beyond doubt that
the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to
relief.” Kirwin v. Price Communications Corp., 391 F.3d 1323, 1325 (11th Cir. 2004)
(internal quotes omitted). In making this assessment, “all facts set forth in the plaintiff’s
complaint are to be accepted as true and the court limits its consideration to the pleadings
and exhibits attached thereto.” Grossman v. Nationsbank, N.A., 225 F.3d 1228, 1231
(11th Cir. 2000) (internal quotes omitted).
The defendants acknowledge none of these principles. Instead, they merely assert
that “it is incumbent upon the Plaintiff to prove that her complaint was timely filed.”
Indeed it is, but the defendants have not shown that the plaintiff cannot prove her
complaint was timely filed. That it may be unlikely does not show that it is impossible.
For the reasons set forth above, the motion to dismiss filed by defendant State of
Alabama Administrative Office of Courts, (Doc. 6), is denied. The motion to dismiss
filed by the individual defendants, (Doc. 5), is denied in part, as to its untimeliness
The individual defendants raise the additional argument that suit under Title VII
cannot be brought against them in their individual capacity and that suit against them in
their official capacity is redundant, since the employer is also a defendant. (Doc. 5 at 12). The plaintiff is ordered to file and serve her response to this argument on or before
October 18, 2011. The individual defendants are ordered to file and serve any reply on
or before October 25, 2011. The Court will take the individual defendants’ motion to
dismiss under submission on October 25, 2011.
DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of October, 2011.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?