Williams v. Chick-Fil-A Inc et al

Filing 13

ORDER. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to Ms. Williams via certified mail/return receipt requested a copy of this Order and the Order dated 9/18/12 12 . Ms. Williams is directed to file a response to this Order by 2/15/13. The Court has provided the Clerk with Ms. Williams' last-known address. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 1/9/13. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
ANTINITA WILLIAMS
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 4:11-cv-744-KGB

CHICK-FIL-A, INC. and
BOB PAINE

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

By Order dated September 18, 2012, the Court granted Mr. Luther Sutter’s request to
withdraw as counsel for plaintiff Antinita Williams (Dkt. No. 12). In that Order, the Court
directed Ms. Williams to inform the Court regarding the status of this case by November 18,
2012. To date, Ms. Williams has not filed a report or otherwise communicated with the Court.
Ms. Williams’s address does not appear in the Court’s records, and the Court cannot be certain
that Ms. Williams received a copy of the Order dated September 18, 2012. The Court has
received from counsel for defendant Bob Paine the last known address for Ms. Williams, which
the Court has provided to the Clerk of Court.
The Clerk of Court is directed to send to Ms. Williams via certified mail/return receipt
requested a copy of this Order and the Order dated September 18, 2012. Ms. Williams shall
have until February 15, 2013, to inform the Court of the status of this case. Before responding,
Ms. Williams is directed to take notice of Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), which provides as follows:
It is the duty of any party not represented by counsel to promptly
notify the Clerk and other parties to the proceedings of any changes in his or
her address, to monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the
action diligently. A party appearing for himself/herself shall sign his/her
pleadings and state his/her address, zip code, and telephone number. If any
communication from the Court to a pro se plaintiff is not responded to within
thirty (30) days, the case may be dismissed without prejudice. Any party
proceeding pro se shall be expected to be familiar with and follow the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

Further, the record indicates that Ms. Williams alleges that she was terminated in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C § 2000e, et seq. Ms. Williams
also brings claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. Ms.
Williams should be aware that the practical effect of a dismissal without prejudice in this case
may be a dismissal of her claims with prejudice, at least as to her Title VII claims.
Arkansas has a savings statute that entitles a party to refile a cause of action within one
year after a dismissal without prejudice. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-126. However, that statute
does not apply to extend the limitations period for Title VII claims, which are governed by a
specific federal statute of limitations. See Garrison v. Int’l Paper Co., 714 F.2d 757, 759 n.2
(8th Cir. 1983). Thus, in Title VII cases, a dismissal without prejudice does not toll the 90-day
period to file suit. Gatlin v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 631 F.2d 551, 554 (8th Cir. 1980) (“[A]
dismissal without prejudice leaves the situation so far as procedures therein are concerned the
same as though the suit had never been brought and a party cannot deduct from the limitations
period the time during which the action so dismissed was pending.”).
Ms. Williams is directed to file a response to this Order by February 15, 2013, therein
also responding to the Court’s Order dated September 18, 2012. If Ms. Williams fails to comply
with the Court’s Orders, her case may be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule
5.5(c)(2).
SO ORDERED this the 9th day of January, 2013.

_____________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge