Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-4_13-cv-02266/USCOURTS-alnd-4_13-cv-02266-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:2601 Family and Medical Leave Act (1993)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

MIDDLE DIVISION

KRISTI WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAGLE’S, INC.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 4:13-CV-2266-VEH

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 3, 2014, the undersigned set aside the entry of default in this case

noting:

The complaint in this case was filed on December 17, 2013, and

alleges a violation of the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601,

et seq., which allegedly occurred in May of 2012. (Doc. 1 at 2-4). The

Confirmation Order issued by the Bankruptcy Court on October 19,

2012, contains an injunction prohibiting “all Persons who have held,

hold, or may hold Claims against or interests in [Liquidation] . . . from

1

. . . commencing . . . any action or other proceeding of any kind against

[Liquidation] with respect to any such Claim or Interest.” (Doc. 18-1 at

31). Thus, it appears as if the plaintiff’s claim is barred by the

injunction.

Further, Harding stated in his declaration that the plaintiff has not

filed any claims against the estate. (Doc. 19-1 at 3). Accordingly it

 CGLA Liquidation, Inc. (“Liquidation”) is the new entity formerly known as Cagle’s, 1

Inc.

FILED

 2014 Apr-22 PM 01:47

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 4:13-cv-02266-VEH Document 23 Filed 04/22/14 Page 1 of 3
appearsthat the plaintiff’s claim may be administratively barred as well.

. . . 

[T]he plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE, within 7 days, why this case

should not be dismissed as administratively barred, and/or enjoined by

the bankruptcy court.

(Doc. 22 at 11-12). The time for responding to this court’s order has now expired and

no response has been filed by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has failed to show why her case should not be dismissed as being

filed in violation of the injunction issued by the bankruptcy court, and/or because she

did not file a proof of claim with the bankruptcy court. Under the circumstances, the

2

court determines that this case should be DISMISSED without prejudice. Any

 As has been noted: 2

When a debtor files a bankruptcy petition, creditors may file a “proof of

claim.” 11 U.S.C. § 501(a). Once a proof of claim is filed it will be deemed

allowed, unless a party in interest objects to such claim. 11 U.S.C. § 502(a). 

When an objection is made, the court, “after notice and a hearing,” will determine

the amount of the claim and shall allow it, “except to the extent that ... such proof

of claim is not timely filed.” 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(9). Bankruptcy Rule 3002(c)

provides that to be timely filed, a proof of claim must be filed within 90 days after

the first date set for the meeting of creditors, but that a proof of claim by a

governmental unit—such as the IRS—may be filed within 180 days after the “date

of the order for relief,” which in a Chapter 13 case is the petition filing date. Fed.

R. Bankr.Proc. 3002(c)(1); 11 U.S.C. § 301(b). 

In re Adams, 502 B.R. 645, 646 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2013) (footnotes omitted). In this case no

claim, timely or otherwise, was filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has failed to show why, under

these circumstances, the claim she asserts in this case should be allowed. 

2

Case 4:13-cv-02266-VEH Document 23 Filed 04/22/14 Page 2 of 3
party may reopen the case, upon good cause shown, to address any issue not resolved

by the bankruptcy court, and which is not barred by, or barred as a result of, the

proceedings in the bankruptcy court. A separate order will be entered.

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of April, 2014.

 

 VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS

United States District Judge

3

Case 4:13-cv-02266-VEH Document 23 Filed 04/22/14 Page 3 of 3