Gallo v. Dillard's Inc

Filing 14

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice and granting Dillard's motion to dismiss. The motion to appoint counsel is denied as moot. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 10/11/11. (kpr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION PLAINTIFF DANIEL GALLO I v. No.4:11-cv-640-DPM DEFENDANT DILLARD'S, INC. ORDER Gallo's Title VII complaint against Dillard's is dismissed as time barred. Despite the clear warning in the EEOC's "Notice of Right to Sue" letter that Gallo received on 14 May 2011, he did not file this lawsuit within the statutory ninety-day period. 42 U.s.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). Although this limitation period may be tolled in"appropriate circumstances," Hill v. John Chezik Imports, 869 F.2d 1122, 1124 (8th Cir. 1989), none of the recognized circumstances that may warrant tolling are present here. E.g., Hallgren v. United States Department of Energy, 331 F.3d 588, 590 (8th Cir. 2003) (an ADEA case). As Gallo's response to the motion to dismiss reveals, he knew about his ninety-day window and no circumstances"out of his hands" caused him to miss that deadline. Ibid. Dillard's nlotion to dismiss, Document No.9, is therefore granted; Gallo's untimely complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The motion to appoint counsel, Document No. 11, is denied as moot. So Ordered. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 11 October 2011 -2­

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?