Harris v. Sam's Town Casino

Filing 32

ORDER granting 4 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Neal B. Biggers on 3/30/2010. (llw, USDC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI DELTA DIVISION BER'NEICE HARRIS V. BOYD TUNICA, INC. ORDER This cause comes before the court upon the defendant's motion to dismiss. Upon due consideration of the motion, response, and supporting and opposing authority, the court finds that the motion is well taken and shall be granted. The sole issue before the court is whether the plaintiff's Title VII case should be dismissed for her failure to timely file her complaint, as it is uncontested that the complaint was filed outside the ninety-day time period provided in the statute. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). The plaintiff's right-to-sue letter was issued by the EEOC on December 11, 2008. This action was filed on April 8, 2009. Plaintiff's counsel has provided the court with a detailed explanation for what counsel asserts amounts to clerical error. While the Fifth Circuit has recognized that the ninety-day filing period is subject to equitable tolling,1 the doctrine of equitable tolling does not normally apply to situations of attorney "inadvertence" or the "inadvertence of [the] attorney's staff." Kaura v. Pinkerton Security and Investigation Services, 965 F. Supp. 16, 17 (S.D. Miss. 1997). "A party is bound by the acts of her lawyer/agent." Id. (citing Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990)). PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09CV67-B-A DEFENDANT

1

See Espinoza v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 754 F.2d 1247, 1250 (5th Cir. 1985).

For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that the defendant's motion to dismiss should be and the same is hereby GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. This, the 30th day of March, 2010. /s/ Neal Biggers NEAL B. BIGGERS, JR. SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2