Reed v. Grandsouth Bank et al
| Emiley Reed |
| Craig McAdams, Alan Uram, Robert Phillips and Grandsouth Bank |
| 2:2021cv00348 |
| February 4, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Mary Gordon Baker |
| Margaret B Seymour |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 31, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 TEXT ORDER finding as moot #4 Motion to Dismiss. Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 4), in which they argue, inter alia, that Plaintiff's Title VII claims were untimely filed and she is not otherwise entitled to equitable tolling. Because federal jurisdiction depends on the Title VII claims, the Court finds the timeliness of these claims is a threshold issue. However, the issue of equitable tolling is more appropriately considered at summary judgment, after discovery has been conducted. See Barnwell v. Magellan Health, Inc., No. 9:18-CV-2326-RMG-BM, 2019 WL 7938328, at *5 (D.S.C. Oct. 25, 2019) (finding the argument that plaintiff's Title VII and ADEA claims were untimely filed and plaintiff is not otherwise entitled to equitable tolling is "appropriate for a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment" rather than a Rule 12 motion to dismiss) (collecting cases), adopted by, No. 9:18-CV-2326-RMG, 2019 WL 6486799 (D.S.C. Dec. 3, 2019). Accordingly, the Court will bifurcate discovery and allow the parties two weeks to engage in discovery on the limited issue of whether equitable tolling applies here. This discovery should be completed by April 14, 2021 and dispositive motions on this limited issue are due by May 3, 2021. In light of these instructions, the Court finds Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 4) is MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. Entered at the direction of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker on 3/31/21.(akob, ) |
| Filing 7 REPLY to Response to Motion re #4 Proposed MOTION to Dismiss Response filed by Grandsouth Bank, Craig McAdams, Robert Phillips, Alan Uram. (Williams, Amanda) |
| Filing 6 RESPONSE in Opposition re #4 Proposed MOTION to Dismiss Response filed by Emiley Reed.Reply to Response to Motion due by 3/11/2021 Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Postmark 1st Right to Sue, #2 Exhibit Postmark 2nd Right to Sue)(Mullaney, Marybeth) |
| Filing 5 ANSWER to Complaint by Grandsouth Bank, Craig McAdams, Robert Phillips, Alan Uram.(Williams, Amanda) |
| Filing 4 MOTION to Dismiss by Grandsouth Bank, Craig McAdams, Robert Phillips, Alan Uram. Response to Motion due by 3/4/2021. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: #1 Memo in Support, #2 Exhibit A - 5-7-2020 Charge of Discrimination, #3 Exhibit B - 6-10-2020 Charge of Discrimination, #4 Exhibit C - Notice of Rights as to Charge No. 415-2020-00880, #5 Exhibit D - Notice of Rights as to Charge No. 415-2020-01061)No proposed order.Motions referred to Mary Gordon Baker.(Williams, Amanda) Modified docket text to correct event type on 2/19/2021 (hada, ). |
| Filing 3 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Grandsouth Bank, Craig McAdams, Robert Phillips, Alan Uram.(hada, ) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, case number 2020CP1002006. (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0420-9630173), filed by Robert Phillips, Grandsouth Bank, Craig McAdams, Alan Uram. (Attachments: #1 State Court Documents)(hada, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the South Carolina District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
