Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04461/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04461-2/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 GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

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. On January 23, 2006, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause directed to Ms.

Jackson to show cause by February 10, 2006, as to why her case should not be dismissed as

untimely.

Ms. Jackson has not responded to the Court’s Order to Show Cause. Accordingly,

pursuant to the terms of that Order, the Court has taken the Defendant’s motion under

submission and hereby GRANTS the motion. The ruling is without prejudice to Ms. Jackson

filing an amended complaint in accordance with the terms of this Order. If Ms. Jackson fails to

file an amended complaint by March 13, 2006, the Court shall issue an Order dismissing the

case with prejudice. 

//

//

Case 3:05-cv-04461-JSW Document 18 Filed 02/27/06 Page 1 of 4
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

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

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.) 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. 

ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standards for Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6).

A motion to dismiss is proper under Rule 12(b)(6) where the pleadings fail to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss should

not be granted unless it appears beyond a doubt that a plaintiff can show no set of facts

supporting his or her claim. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also De La Cruz

v. Tormey, 582 F.2d 45, 48 (9th Cir. 1978). A statute of limitations defense may be raised by a

motion to dismiss where, as here, the running of the applicable limitations period is apparent on

the face of the complaint. Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co., 614 F.2d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 1980). In

ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the complaint is construed in the light most favorable to the

non-moving party and all material allegations in the complaint are taken to be true. Sanders v.

Kennedy, 794 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 1986). The court, however, is not required to accept legal

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be

drawn from the facts alleged. Cleggy v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir.

1994) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)).

B. 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 of receiving a right to sue letter from the EEOC. 

Case 3:05-cv-04461-JSW Document 18 Filed 02/27/06 Page 2 of 4
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

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. 

Ms. Jackson’s contention that her Complaint was timely filed because September 5, 2005 was a

federal holiday is without merit. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a), weekends

and holidays are included in the calculation of the time period in which an action must be taken. 

See, e.g., Hart v. United States, 817 F.2d 78, 80 (9th Cir. 1987) (using Rule 6(a) to calculate

running of statute of limitations). As such, unless there are grounds to equitably toll the 90 day

period, Ms. Jackson’s complaint must be dismissed.

C. On this Record, There Are No Grounds to Toll the Complaint.

“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). 

Ms. Jackson’s opposition to the motion to dismiss provided no basis on which to

conclude equitable tolling would apply. Because Ms. Jackson did not appear at the hearing, the

Court granted her a further opportunity to respond by way of its Order to Show Cause. Having

Case 3:05-cv-04461-JSW Document 18 Filed 02/27/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

failed to respond to that Order, there is nothing in the record on which the Court could find a

basis to equitably toll the limitations period. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. However, given the state of the record,

the Court cannot conclude that there are no facts on which Ms. Jackson could state a claim. 

Accordingly, this ruling is without prejudice to Ms. Jackson filing an amended complaint

pleading facts showing that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled. Ms. Jackson

shall file any such amended complaint by March 13, 2006. Because Ms. Jackson has not

demonstrated diligence in prosecuting her case, having failed to appear at the hearing on

Defendants’ motion and having failed to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, the Court

shall construe a failure to file an amended complaint as a concession that no grounds for

equitable tolling exist. If the deadline for filing an amended complaint passes without such a

filing, the Court shall enter an order dismissing the case with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04461-JSW Document 18 Filed 02/27/06 Page 4 of 4