Williams v. Georgia Stevedore Association, Inc. et al

Filing 111

ORDER dismissing 67 Motion for Summary Judgment; dismissing 69 Motion for Summary Judgment; dismissing as moot 97 Motion to Strike; dismissing as moot 99 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 6/12/2013. (loh)

tJ,S.Dn.
SA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
0 13 J,
SAVANNAH DIVISION

2

-

ROBERT WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

CASE NO. CV411-284

V.

GEORGIA STEVEDORE
ASSOCIATION, INC. and
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S
ASSOCIATION LOCAL NUMBER
1414, SAVANNAH, GEORGIA,
Defendants,

ORDER

Before the Court are Defendant Georgia Stevedore
Association, Inc.'s ("GSA") (Doc. 67) and Defendant
International Longshoremen's Association Local Number 1414,
Savannah, Georgia's (ILA") (Doc. 69) Motions for Summary
Judgment. Plaintiff has filed responses in opposition to
both motions.
Defendants' motions were filed in November 2012,
before the Court's March 18, 2013 order denying Defendants'
prior motions to dismiss. In the March 2013 order, this
Court rejected Defendants' arguments that the complaint
should be dismissed because Defendants did not employ the
minimum number of employees to subject them to the
requirements of Title.VII. (See Doc. 108 at 12-14.) This

Court wrote that 'the issue of whether two distinct, but
related business entities—such as Defendant ILA and
Defendant GSA" ought to be aggregated as a single employer
under Eleventh Circuit precedent is a "fact-intensive
inquiry, and one more suited for disposition by this Court
on summary judgment than on the current motion to dismiss."
(Id. at 14.)
Indeed, in the summary judgment filings, no party
spent any significant time addressing the issue, which is
both a factual inquiry and jurisdictional bar. Because the
previous order could impact the bases upon which the
current motions for summary judgment are supported or
opposed, they are

DISMISSED.

Therefore, the Court will

allow the Defendants thirty days from the date of this
order to ref ile the motions and accompanying filings
required by the local rules for summary judgment motions,
containing any additional argument or citations to this
point, should they deem it necessary.'

1

The parties should also be aware that the Court will not
accept any motion, response, or reply that incorporates by
reference any factual allegation or argument contained in
the original motions or any documents filed in response or
reply to an original motion. Any further motions or
responses should be stand-alone filings that independently
contain all the factual allegations and arguments that the
filing party wishes the Court to consider.

Additionally, because Defendant GSA's Motions to
Strike (Docs. 97, 99) involve filings pertaining to the
now-dismissed motions for summary judgment, they are
DISMISSED AS MOOT.

Should Defendant GSA wish to ref ile

these motions it may do so within fourteen days of any such
responsive filing by Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED this

/2.-

day of June 2013.

WILLIAM T. MOORE,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3