Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_06-cv-00950/USCOURTS-almd-1_06-cv-00950-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SAMUEL ADAMS, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. ) CASE NO. 1:06-cv-950-MEF 

)

WAYNE FARMS LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This cause is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration / Renewed

Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Doc. # 23) filed on January 18, 2007. This

Court denied in part the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Doc. # 14)

because the proposed amended complaint sought to include claims that were time barred by

the applicable statute of limitations. See Doc. # 20. Plaintiffs object to that Order (Doc. #

20) and now ask this Court to reconsider its motion on the grounds of equitable tolling. For

the reasons set forth below, the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration / Renewed Motion for

Leave to File Amended Complaint (Doc. # 23) is due to be DENIED.

When a court invokes the doctrine of equitable tolling, it does so by tolling “the

statute of limitations until such a time that the court determines would have been fair for the

statute of limitations to begin running on the plaintiff’s claims.” Arce v. Garcia, 434 F.3d

1254, 1261 (11th Cir. 2006). “Equitable tolling is appropriate when a movant untimely files

because of extraordinary circumstances that are both beyond his control and unavoidable

even with diligence.” Sandvik v. United States, 177 F.3d 1269, 1271 (11th Cir. 1999). As

Case 1:06-cv-00950-MEF-WC Document 26 Filed 01/23/07 Page 1 of 3
 Courts hesitate to equitably toll statutes of limitations because these “such statutes 1

promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed

to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have

disappeared. The theory is that even if one has a just claim it is unjust not to put the

adversary on notice to defend within the period of limitation and that the right to be free of

stale claims in time comes to prevail over the right to prosecute them.” Burnett v. New York

Cent. R.R. Co., 380 U.S. 424, 428 (1965) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

the United States Supreme Court advised, equitable tolling “is an extraordinary remedy

which should be extended only sparingly.” Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89,

98 (1990). 

1

The plaintiff bears the burden of showing that extraordinary circumstances exist to

justify the implementation of this seldom used judicial remedy. Arce, 434 F.3d at 1261

(citing Justice v. United States, 6 F.3d 1474, 1479 (11th Cir. 1993)). In Acre, for example,

the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals found equitable tolling appropriate where the plaintiffs

brought claims under the Torture Victim Protection Act and the district court tolled the

statute of limitations until the defendants were within the jurisdictional reach of the United

States courts and the civil war in El Salvador had ended. Id. at 1265. The Court there found

that the “remedial scheme conceived by the [Torture Victim Protection Act] ... would fail if

courts allowed the clock to run on potentially meritorious claims while the regime

responsible for the heinous acts for which these statutes provide redress remains in power.”

Id.

While equitable tolling has been employed in situations far less dramatic than that of

human rights abuses committed by a foreign military regime during a bloody civil war, the

Plaintiffs in this case have not, at this time, demonstrated the requisite extraordinary

Case 1:06-cv-00950-MEF-WC Document 26 Filed 01/23/07 Page 2 of 3
circumstances. For these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for

Reconsideration / Renewed Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Doc. # 23) is

DENIED. 

 DONE this the 23 day of January, 2007. 

rd

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00950-MEF-WC Document 26 Filed 01/23/07 Page 3 of 3