MILLARD v. ROLLS-ROYCE NORTH AMERICA, INC.
Filing
21
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 19 Motion to Amend Complaint. See Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 9/24/2018. (SWM) .
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
QWENDOLYN MILLARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROLLS-ROYCE NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:18-cv-01116-WTL-TAB
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
At issue is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her first amended complaint. 1 [Filing
No. 19.] Plaintiff seeks to dismiss Counts III and IV from her amended complaint, and to add
new Counts IV and V. Defendant does not oppose dropping the two counts or adding the new
Count V. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to amend to the extent it dismisses
Counts III and IV and adds Count V. [Filing No. 19.]
However, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to amend to add the new Count IV.
Defendant objects to the new count, arguing that this claim is time barred. Defendant points out
that Plaintiff seeks to add this claim more than 200 days after the EEOC issued Plaintiff a notice
of her right to sue. Following an EEOC right to sue letter, plaintiffs have 90 days to file a claim.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). The Seventh Circuit hold plaintiffs to this limit, absent special
circumstances giving rise to waiver, estoppel, or equitable tolling. See, e.g. Reschny v. Elk
Grove Plating Co., 414 F.3d 821 (7th Cir. 2005) (upholding dismissal for failure to file
complaint within 90 days even though the plaintiff had not received the letter following a change
1
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s counsel failed to sign this motion. Counsel signed the
certificate of service, but failed to sign the motion itself.
in her address because the plaintiff had not notified the EEOC of the change); Anooya v. Hilton
Hotels Corp., 733 F.2d 48, 49 (7th Cir. 1984) (upholding dismissal of a complaint filed 91 days
after receipt of the right to sue letter). Plaintiff failed to reply to Defendant’s objection that this
new claim is untimely, suggesting Plaintiff concedes the claim is improper. In any event, the
Court finds Defendant’s objection well taken.
For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s motion to amend
her amended complaint. [Filing No. 19.] Plaintiff has 14 days from the date of this order to file
a (signed) amended complaint consistent with this order.
Date: 9/24/2018
_______________________________
Tim A. Baker
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana
2
Distribution:
Amber K. Boyd
AMBER BOYD, ATTORNEY AT LAW
amber@amberboydlaw.com
Taylor Hunter
BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP (Indianapolis)
taylor.hunter@btlaw.com
R. Anthony Prather
BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP (Indianapolis)
tony.prather@btlaw.com
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?