Nicholas v. The H.T. Hackney Co.

Filing 19

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 4 Motion to Dismiss. This ruling is without prejudice to the parties' ability to reassert their arguments in a dispositive motion following discovery. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 3/7/2018. (nvc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 5:17-cv-00036-FDW-DSC
JESSICA A. NICHOLAS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE H.T. HACKNEY CO.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 4), which
has been fully briefed by the parties. In short, Defendant contends Plaintiff’s complaint should be
dismissed in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After reviewing the pleadings, as well as
applicable law, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff’s complaint asserts three causes of action: (1) “Sex Discrimination” under Title
VII, (Doc. No. 1, p. 7); (2) “Violation of the Fail [sic] Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended
by the Equal Pay Act PF [sic] 1963 (‘Equal Pay Act’) . . . ,” (Doc. No. 1, p. 8); and (3) “North
Carolina Sex Discrimination,” (Doc. No. 1, p. 10). Defendant has moved to dismiss all claims. In
response, Plaintiff offered no argument or authority in opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss
her state law claim for sex discrimination. (See Doc. No. 12). After reviewing the pleadings and
applicable law, the Court concludes that dismissal of this claim is appropriate for the reasons stated
in Defendant’s briefs supporting its motion to dismiss, (see Docs. Nos. 5, 13). As to Plaintiff’s
two claims under federal law, the Court shall deny the motion to dismiss those claims. Such denial

1

is without prejudice to the parties’ ability to reassert their arguments in a dispositive motion
following discovery.
Finally, the Court notes Plaintiff’s brief is wrought with incomplete and sometimes
inaccurate citations, many lacking pin point citation, leaving the Court to track down the case or
pinpoint location for authority relied on by Plaintiff. Such failure to provide full and accurate
citations hinders the Court’s and opposing counsel’s ability to efficiently and expeditiously review
the relevant legal authority and creates “unnecessary work for the Court . . . .” See Murray v. N.
Carolina Dep't of Pub. Safety, No. 1:14-CV-985, 2015 WL 11089742, at *2 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 19,
2015), aff'd, 611 F. App'x 166 (4th Cir. 2015). In the future, counsel should pay careful attention
to citations contained within briefs so as to clearly indicate reliance on legal authority.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 4) is
GRANTED IN PART as to Plaintiff’s claim for “North Carolina Sex Discrimination,” (Doc. No.
1, p. 10, ¶¶ 56-63), and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART as to Plaintiff’s claims under
Title VII and the Equal Pay Act. This ruling is without prejudice to the parties’ ability to reassert
their arguments in a dispositive motion following discovery
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: March 7, 2018

2