Moreno-Woods v. T-Mobile Wireless et al
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 27 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed, with prejudice. Plaintiff's "new" complaint, which was mailed to the Clerk on November 26, 2012, will not be filed as it alleges an ADA claim against Defendant. Signed by District Judge Monti L. Belot on 12/4/2012. Mailed to pro se party Natalia Moreno-Woods by regular mail. (alm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
NATALIA MORENO-WOODS,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION
No.
12-1195-MLB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case comes before the court on defendant’s motion for
reconsideration.
(Doc. 27).
is ripe for decision.
The motion has been fully briefed and
(Doc. 29).
On November 16, 2012, this court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint
without
prejudice
after
determining
she
failed
to
exhaust
administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b).
26).
her
(Doc.
Defendant had sought a dismissal with prejudice but recognizing
plaintiff’s pro se status and in order to give plaintiff every
opportunity to pursue her case, the court instructed the clerk not to
file another complaint alleging an ADA claim against defendant unless
plaintiff attached her timely EEOC charge and right to sue letter to
the complaint.
Defendant now moves for reconsideration and asks the court to
dismiss plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice on the grounds of newly
acquired evidence.
(Doc. 27).
Defendant has attached plaintiff’s
EEOC charge which was filed on October 27, 2012.
submitted
a
dismissal
notice
plaintiff’s charge was untimely.
from
the
EEOC
Defendant has also
which
states
that
Plaintiff responds that defendant
has waived its right to raise a failure to exhaust defense because it
did not raise this defense in plaintiff’s first case, No. 11-1314.
In plaintiff’s first action, however, plaintiff did not allege a
violation
of
the
ADA.
Plaintiff’s
claims
included
defamation,
interference with economically advantageous relationships, and breach
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.1
Moreover, the court
has previously determined that defendant’s motion was timely and the
defense has not been waived.
(Doc. 26 at 3-4).
After reviewing the EEOC charge and notice of dismissal, the
court finds that plaintiff’s ADA claim is barred because she failed
to file a charge with the EEOC within 300 days of her termination.
See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1).
Plaintiff cannot overcome this hurdle
and repeated litigation is burdensome on defendant, as well as the
court.
Therefore, defendant’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 27)
is granted.
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with prejudice.
Plaintiff’s “new” complaint, which was mailed to the clerk on November
26, 2012, will not be filed as it alleges an ADA claim against
defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this
4th
day of December 2012, at Wichita, Kansas.
s/ Monti Belot
Monti L. Belot
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
These claims were raised in plaintiff’s initial complaint in
this case. The claims were absent, however, when plaintiff filed an
amended complaint and only listed an ADA claim.
1
-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?