Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-7_11-cv-01096/USCOURTS-alnd-7_11-cv-01096-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ADRIENNE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HUNT OIL REFINING CORP.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 2:11-CV-1096-SLB

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case is presently pending before the court on Motion to Dismiss filed by Hunt

Oil Company [Hunt Oil]. (Doc. 2.) Hunt Oil asks the court to dismiss plaintiff’s Complaint

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(4) and (5), on the ground that plaintiff served Hunt Oil 1

Company, but named Hunt Oil Refining Corp. [Hunt Refining] as the defendant, which is

not the same entity as Hunt Oil. For the reasons set forth below, the court finds that

plaintiff’s Complaint against Hunt Oil is due to be dismissed.

Rule 12(b)(4) and (5) provide: 1

Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the

responsive pleading if one is required. But a party may assert the following

defenses by motion:

. . .

(4) insufficient process; 

(5) insufficient service of process . . . . 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(4)-(5).

FILED

 2012 Mar-12 AM 11:26

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 7:11-cv-01096-SLB Document 9 Filed 03/12/12 Page 1 of 3
In her Complaint, plaintiff alleges that sexual harassment and unlawful retaliation

occurred during her employment with the defendant, “Hunt Oil Refining Co.” (See generally

doc. 1.) The copy of her EEOC Right to Sue Letter, which is attached to her Complaint, was

sent to “Hunt Refining Company.” (Doc. 1 at 5.) The Complaint, however, was served on

“Hunt Oil.” (Doc. 2 ¶ 1.)

Hunt Oil has appeared before the court and moved to be dismissed from this action

as “it is not ‘Hunt Oil Refining Corp.,’” and “it does not employ and has not employed

anyone named ‘Adrienne Williams.’” (Id. ¶¶ 2-3.) It “avers that its corporate affiliate, Hunt

Refining Company, operates a petroleum refinery in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.” (Id. ¶ 4.)

In response to Hunt Oil’s Motion to Dismiss, plaintiff contends:

1. The Plaintiff referred [to] the Alabama Secretary of State’s Office

and website and was provided this information as to the proper registered

agent for purpose of filing this lawsuit.2

2. The Plaintiff filed this case in good faith in an attempt to serve the

proper party to obtain redress for the discrimination that she endured at Hunt’s

local operations in Tuscaloosa[,] Alabama.

3. The Plaintiff was an employee of Hunt Refining Corp., which is also

widely known in Tuscaloosa and described in Tuscaloosa as Hunt Oil.

4. Any error in the summons is a mere scrivener’s error due to the fact

that Hunt is an oil refinery and operates a refinery in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

The court notes that the Secretaryof State’s website contains listings for Hunt Oil and 2

Hunt Refining. See Hunt Oil Company at http://arc-sos.state.al.us/cgi/corpdetail.mbr/

detail?corp=853455&page=name&file=; and Hunt Refining Company, Inc. at

http://arc-sos.state.al.us/cgi/corpdetail.mbr/detail?corp=853455&page=name&file=.

2

Case 7:11-cv-01096-SLB Document 9 Filed 03/12/12 Page 2 of 3
(Doc. 4 [footnote added].) Plaintiff asks the court to “deny the Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss this lawsuit and allow her to amend her complaint and summons so that she can

address the Defendant’s subsidiary.”3

The court finds that Hunt Oil’s Motion to Dismiss is due to be granted. Plaintiff has

presented no argument that Hunt Oil is liable for plaintiff’s claim of employment

discrimination. The court will allow plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint to name

Hunt Refining. However, this leave to amend does not imply that this court has any opinion

as to whether the amendment will relate back to the date plaintiff filed her original

Complaint.4

An Order granting Hunt Oil’s Motion to Dismiss will be entered contemporaneously

with this Memorandum Opinion.

DONE, this 12th day of March, 2012.

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Hunt Oil contends that Hunt Refinery is an “affiliate,” not a subsidiary. (Doc. 2 ¶ 4.) 3

“Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs when an amended 4

pleading ‘relates back’ to the date of a timely filed original pleading and is thus itself timely

even though it was filed outside an applicable statute of limitations. Where an amended

pleading changes a party or a party’s name, the Rule requires, among other things, that ‘the

party to be brought in by amendment . . . knew or should have known that the action would

have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity.’” Rule

15(c)(1)(C).” Krupski v. Costa Crociere S. p. A., 130 S. Ct. 2485, 2489 (2010).

3

Case 7:11-cv-01096-SLB Document 9 Filed 03/12/12 Page 3 of 3