Ashby v. Amscan, Inc.

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Greg N. Stivers. The Court GRANTS IN PART to the extent that this proceeding is STAYED pending the outcome of the administrative actions. The Court DENIES IN PART to the extent that it seeks dismissal of this matter. cc: Counsel(JWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-00643-GNS

WINONA ASHBY

PLAINTIFF

v.

AMSCAN, INC. d/b/a DECO PAPER PRODUCTS

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Defendant Amscan, Inc.’s (“Amscan”) Motion to
Dismiss, or in the Alternative Motion to Stay Proceedings (DN 3). For the reasons stated herein,
the Court GRANTS the motion in part and DENIES the motion in part.
I. BACKGROUND
On July 1, 2015, Plaintiff Winona Ashby (“Ashby”) filed a complaint in Jefferson Circuit
Court alleging that Amscan has violated the Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”) and the
Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). (Compl. 1-5, DN 1-2). On July 29, 2015, Amscan
removed the case to this Court on the basis of both subject matter and diversity jurisdiction, and
filed the instant motion. (Notice of Removal 2, DN 1; Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, or in the
Alternative Mot to Stay Proceedings [hereinafter Def.’s Mot.]). Plaintiff has responded (Pl.’s
Resp. to Def.’s Mot., DN 6 [hereinafter Pl.’s Resp.]) and Amscan has replied in support of its
motion (Def.’s Reply in Supp. of Def.’s Mot., DN 7 [hereinafter Def.’s Reply]). The motion is
thus ripe for adjudication.

II. JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction over “any civil action brought in a State court of which the
district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction” that is “removed by the defendant
or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing
the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
III. DISCUSSION
In its motion, Amscan states that Ashby filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging similar allegations to those contained
in her complaint, as well as a charge of discrimination with the Kentucky Commission on
Human Rights. (Def.’s Mot. 1; Notice of Charge of Discrimination, DN 3-1). Amscan notes that
“the doctrine of election of remedies prohibits the filing of this action until the administrative
actions have concluded.” (Def.’s Mot. 1-2). Amscan argues, accordingly, that this matter should
be dismissed or, in the alternative, stayed pending the outcomes of the administrative actions.
(Def.’s Mot. 2).
Ashby does not object to staying the current proceedings until the administrative actions
have concluded. (Pl.’s Resp. 2). In its reply, Amscan notes Ashby’s lack of objection to a stay
and requests that the Court enter an order staying this proceeding. (Def.’s Reply 1). The parties
being in agreement, the Court will grant a stay of these proceedings.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Amscan, Inc.’s motion (DN 3)
to the extent that this proceeding is STAYED pending the outcome of the administrative actions
regarding these claims. At such time, either party may request by proper motion that this matter

2

be resumed. The Court DENIES IN PART Amscan, Inc.’s motion to the extent that it seeks
dismissal of this matter.

Greg N. Stivers, Judge
United States District Court
November 6, 2015

cc:

counsel of record

3