Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_99-cv-00489/USCOURTS-azd-2_99-cv-00489-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jean Morgan,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

MCI Telecommunications Corp., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 99-0489-PHX-DKD

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's September 8, 2004 Motion to Alter or Amend the

Court's Judgment. The Court entered said judgment upon Defendants' unopposed motion

following Defendants' bankruptcy. Plaintiff asked that the Court's judgment be amended to

reflect that it was without prejudice to Plaintiff's pursuit of her claim as permitted by

Defendants' confirmed Chapter 11 plan. Plaintiff asserted that "out of an abundance of caution,

Plaintiff seeks to have the judgment amended to reflect that the dismissal was without prejudice

and does not otherwise prevent Plaintiff from seeking allowance of and distribution on its claim

in accordance with the procedure set forth in the MCI's Plan." Doc. #176 at p. 2.

The Court allowed this motion to remain pending for over a year to allow Plaintiff to

further inform the Court if the feared specter of the inappropriate use of the judgment in this

case to preclude Plaintiff's presentation of her claim pursuant to the Plan should be realized.

In light of the fact that no further information has been proffered and that it appears very

unlikely that Plaintiff's fears would be realized (in light of grounds asserted in the Motion to

Case 2:99-cv-00489-DKD Document 178 Filed 09/30/05 Page 1 of 2
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 -

Dismiss), the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion to Amend. This denial however is, itself,

without prejudice.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend the

Court's Judgment (Doc. #176).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING the parties' Stipulation for Extension of

Time (Doc. #177), as MOOT. 

DATED this 28th day of September, 2005.

Case 2:99-cv-00489-DKD Document 178 Filed 09/30/05 Page 2 of 2