Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04461/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04461-1/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MYRA JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FEDERAL EXPRESS,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-04461 JSW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

CASE SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED

On January 20, 2006, this matter came before the Court for a hearing on Defendant

Federal Express’ (“Federal Express”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff Myra Jackson’s (“Ms.

Jackson”) complaint. Ms. Jackson filed an opposition to the motion, but did not appear at the

hearing.

Ms. Jackson alleges that in terminating her employment, Federal Express discriminated

against her on the basis of her race, gender and disability. (Compl., ¶ 5.) According to her

complaint, the alleged discrimination occurred on or about December 4, 2004. (Id., ¶ 7.) Ms.

Jackson filed charges with California Department of Fair Employment and Housing on June 3,

2005. (Id., ¶ 7, Att. 3.) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a right to sue

letter on July 25, 2005, which Ms. Jackson received on August 3, 2005. (Id., ¶ 9, Att. 2;

Declaration of Myra Jackson, ¶ 2.) Ms. Jackson filed the instant Complaint on November 2,

2005. 

Federal Express’s motion moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on December 9,

2005, asserting that Ms. Jackson’s claims are time barred. A plaintiff seeking to bring a civil

action for employment discrimination pursuant to Title VII must file a complaint within 90 days

Case 3:05-cv-04461-JSW Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

of receiving a right to sue letter from the EEOC. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f)(1); see also Scholar v.

Pacific Bell, 963 F.2d 264, 267 (9th Cir. 1992). This ninety day period operates as a statute of

limitations. Id. As such, it is subject to the doctrine of equitable tolling. Id.

It is undisputed that Ms. Jackson received her right to sue letter on August 3, 2005. Her

Complaint was filed on November 2, 2005, 91 days after she received the right to sue letter. In

her opposition, Ms. Jackson contended that her Complaint was timely filed because September

5, 2005 was a federal holiday. The Court is not persuaded by this argument, because the Ninth

Circuit has relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) to calculate the relevant time for the

running of statutes of limitations. See, e.g., Hart v. United States, 817 F.2d 78, 80 (9th Cir.

1987). Under that rule, weekends and holidays are not included in the calculation of the time

period only when the time period in question is less than eleven days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). As

such, unless there are grounds to equitably toll the 90 day period, Ms. Jackson’s complaint must

be dismissed. 

“The equitable tolling doctrine has been applied by the Supreme Court in certain

circumstances, but it has been applied sparingly.” Scholar, 963 F.2d at 267. By way of

example, the doctrine has been applied to excuse an untimely filing when “the statute of

limitations was not complied with because of defective pleadings, when a claimant was tricked

by an adversary into letting a deadline expire, and when the EEOC’s notice of the statutory

period was inadequate.” Id. at 268. Courts have not applied the doctrine when a litigant fails to

exercise due diligence or in cases where a litigant pleads excusable neglect. See, e.g., Irwin v.

Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96 (1990) (doctrine will not be applied to cases

involving garden variety excusable neglect); Scholar, 963 F.2d at 263-64 (upholding dismissal

of Title VII claim as untimely when complaint was filed three days after 90 day limitations

period expired and where plaintiff explained she had not received right to sue letter until some

time after it arrived at her home and had been signed for by her daughter and offered no other

basis for failing to file complaint within statutory limitations period). 

On the record currently before the Court, the Court could not find a basis to equitably

toll the limitations period. Accordingly, because Ms. Jackson is proceeding pro se and did not

Case 3:05-cv-04461-JSW Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

appear at the hearing, the Court shall afford Ms. Jackson one last opportunity to respond to

Defendant’s motion.

Ms. Jackson is HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be

dismissed as untimely. Ms. Jackson shall file a written response to this Order by no later than

February 10, 2006. Federal Express may file a reply to Ms. Jackson’s response by no later than

February 17, 2006. The Court will then take the matter under submission.

If Ms. Jackson fails to comply with this Order, the Court shall resolve the merits of

Defendant’s motion and rule accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04461-JSW Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 3 of 3