Hunter v. Braum's Inc.

Filing 24

ORDER granting 14 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 22 Motion for Order. Further the plaintiff's complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on September 19, 2008. (lw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION SUSAN HUNTER v. Civil No. 07-2116 PLAINTIFF BRAUM'S Inc., d/b/a Braum's Ice Cream and Dairy Store, #229 ORDER NOW on this 19th day of September, 2008, DEFENDANT comes on for consideration the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14) and the defendant's Motion to Grant Summary Judgment on the Merits and Due to the Plaintiff's Failure to Timely Respond (Doc. 22). The Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds that The Court finds and orders as both motions should be GRANTED. follows with respect thereto: 1. Plaintiff instituted this action in late 2007, alleging that the defendant terminated her employment on the basis of her age and religion and in an effort to prevent her husband from receiving medical insurance benefits under plaintiff's employment benefits plan. Plaintiff asserted that the defendant's actions violated her rights under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. 2. The history of the proceedings relating to the motions now before the Court is as follows: * On August 4, 2008, the defendant filed a motion for (Doc. 14.) summary judgment. * On August 22, 2008, after the deadline for responding to the motion had already passed, plaintiff sought an extension of time to file her response. * 2, 2008. (Doc. 17.) The Court granted plaintiff an extension until September (Doc. 19.) On that date, plaintiff filed a second motion for extension of time, seeking an additional three days to file her response and stating that "no other extension of time will be necessary." * 5, 2008. * Defendant now moves the Court to grant its summary (Doc. 21 4.) The Court granted plaintiff an extension until September judgment motion, as two weeks have elapsed since the September 5th deadline and plaintiff has yet to respond to the motion. 22.) 3. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e)(2) provides: (Doc. When a motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported, an opposing party may not rely merely on allegations or denials in its own pleading; rather, its response must - by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. If the opposing party does not so respond, summary judgment should, if appropriate, be entered against that party. 4. The defendant has supported its summary judgment motion with excerpts from plaintiff's deposition and "Corrective Action 2 Reports" issued to plaintiff. (Doc. 15 Exs. 1 and 2.) These exhibits indicate that plaintiff was terminated for repeatedly failing to complete proper paperwork when she made mistakes on the cash register. motion Plaintiff or has not responded any to the summary her judgment otherwise offered evidence that termination was motivated by her age, religion, or to prevent her husband from collecting medical benefits. Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the existence of any genuine issue for trial and summary judgment is, therefore, appropriate. 5. Based on the foregoing, defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14) and Motion to Grant Summary Judgment on the Merits and Due to the Plaintiff's Failure to Timely Respond (Doc. 22) are hereby GRANTED and plaintiff's complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren JIMM LARRY HENDREN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

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?