Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_05-cv-00121/USCOURTS-ared-5_05-cv-00121-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

JAMES HARDNETT, MAURICE 

SEGREST, On behalf of themselves and

others similarly situated PLAINTIFFS

vs. CASE NO. 5:05CV00121GH

CRACKERBOX #33, LLC, INC.,

ET AL. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Plaintiffs filed this action alleging that defendants discriminated against them

on the basis of race. Plaintiffs brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title

VII and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 (“ACRA”), Ark. Code Ann. § 16-123-101

et seq. Plaintiffs worked in the two stores in Pine Bluff, and contend that the District

Manager over both the stores, Joe Laliberte, used racial slurs and wrongfully

terminated them. 

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative a motion for a

more definite statement. Plaintiffs counter that they have sufficiently stated a claim

for race discrimination. Plaintiffs have named at least sixteen Crackboxes as

defendants. According to the allegations in the complaint, these Crackerbox stores

are located in Arkansas and Laliberte is the manager of all of them. Plaintiffs

contend that they as well as other African-American employed at this stores are

discriminated against on the basis of race. While not particularly a model complaint

in terms of allegations, the complaint sufficiently states a claim for race

discrimination and sufficiently places defendants on notice of the claims, such that

defendants can file a response to the complaint. 

Thus, the Court finds that the motion to dismiss or in the alternative a motion

for a more definite statement is denied.

Case 5:05-cv-00121-GH Document 24 Filed 10/21/05 Page 1 of 2
-2-

Plaintiffs have also filed a motion for extension of time to file for class

certification. Plaintiffs state they need to obtain additional information and conduct

discovery on the class certification issues. Plaintiffs seek an almost 4 month

extension, or until January 20, 2006, to file their motion for class certification. 

Defendants object. Defendants state that they have, through initial disclosures

and responses to interrogatories, provided plaintiffs with sufficient information for

use in a class certification motion. They state that review of the documentation

should not take four months. 

The Court is not of the opinion that the amount of time requested is excessive

given the parties’ schedules and the intervening holidays. Thus, the Court will grant

plaintiffs until January 20, 2006, to file their motion for class certification.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss or in the alternative for a more definite

statement is denied; the motion to extend the deadline for the motion class

certification is granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of October, 2005.

 ________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-00121-GH Document 24 Filed 10/21/05 Page 2 of 2