[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 13455 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:14

- cv - 80137

- KAM

JEAN MESIDOR, PAUL DELVA, JEAN EDY PIERRE, PASTEL ST. DUC, FEKEL EXANTUS, FRANTZ LAURENT, PIERRE DENEUS, DUCOEUR DUMERLUS, ANTOINE PIERVIL, LUCMAN ST. LOUIS, HAROLD COURAGEAUX, JOSEPH HENRY, RONES ST. JULIEN, BERTHO JEANTY, MICHELET ALZIME, WANES MILDOR, JEAN BAPTISTE MONDESTI N, ALEX MESIDORT, ANIVAN CENELIAN, PAUL FERTIL, SAINGIL BENOIT, Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

Case: 14-13455 Date Filed: 03/26/2015 Page: 1 of 62 VIARD SIMON, etc., Plaintiff,

versus WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. OF FLORIDA, a Florida corporation, WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. OF FLORIDA, 1001 Fannin Sute 4000 Houston, TX 77002, Defendants

- Appellees.

________________________ Appeal from the United States district court for the Southern district of Florida

________________________ (March 26, 2015) Before MARTIN , JORDAN and JILL PRYOR , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Jea n Mesidor and twenty other Appellants appeal the dismissal of their employment

- discrimination suits as time

- barred. Their appeal presents one question: are they entitled to equitable tolling of Title VII’s ninety

- day statute of limitations? Because we co nclude they are not, we affirm. Believing that their e mployer, Waste Management, Inc. of Florida, discriminated against them in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , the Appellants made charges of discrimination and received right

- to

- sue letters from the EEOC

. Within ninety days

— that is, within Title VII’s ninety

- day statute

Case: 14-13455 Date Filed: 03/26/2015 Page: 2 of 63 of limitations, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

- 5(f)(1)

— the Appellants ( along with seventy

seven other plaintiffs ) brought a joint action against Waste Manage ment

. Nearly two years later , the district court severed these ninety

- eight claims into individual actions and ordered each plaintiff to file a separate complaint within thirty day s . I nstead of following that instruction, t he Appellants appealed the severance order

. We dismissed because a severance order is reviewable only after final judgment.
See Hofmann v. De Marchena Kaluche & Asociados , 642 F.3d 995 , 998 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam)

. A fter we dismissed their appeal , the Appellants each filed separate complaint s. But by then they were well beyond the thirty

- day deadline imposed by the district court. The court dismissed their complaint s because Title VII’s ninety

day statute of limitations had expired

. The court explained that while the earlier severance order allowed refiling within thirty days despite the expiration of the statute of limitations, the Appellants failed to take action within those thirty days. The Appellants now appeal this dismissal, arguing they are entitled to equitab le tolling. We review de novo a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to satisfy the statute of limitations. Jackson v. Astrue , 506 F.3d 1349, 1352 (11th Cir. 2007). 1

1 The Appellants insist that the district court should have converted Waste Management’s motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment because it relied on materials outside the pleadings

— specifically, the severanc e order from the earlier joint actio n. But a district court may consider extrinsic materi als on a motion to dismiss if “[ 1 ] a plaintiff refers to a document in [his] complaint, [ 2 ] the document is central to [his] claim, [ 3 ] its co ntents are not in disput e, and [ 4 ] the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss.” Fuller v. SunTrust Banks,

Case: 14-13455 Date Filed: 03/26/2015 Page: 3 of 64 The district court did not err in dismissing the Appellants’ individual actions

as time

- barred

. The Appellants received their right

- to

- sue letter s by April 4, 2011, but they did not file their actions until February 2014. Although the d istrict court gave them a thirty

- day reprieve following severance on September 20, 2013, the Appellants failed to file their complaints within this period

. The only a rgument the Appellants raise on appeal is that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled. 2 Title VII’s ninety

- day filing requirement is subject to equitable tolling. Irv in v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs , 498 U.S. 89, 95

– 96,
111 S. Ct. 453, 457 (1990). The Appellants bear the burden of proving equitable tolling, which “is an extraordinary remedy which should be extended only sparingly.” Bost v. Fed. Express Corp. , 372 F.3d 1233, 1242 (11th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted) . We review de novo the district court’s ruling on equitable tolling, but we review its factual determinations only for clear error

. Cabello v.
Ferná ndez

- Larios , 402 F.3d 1148, 1153 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam)

.

Inc. , 744 F.3d 685, 696 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted) . A court may also consider public documents, such as court orders, without converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. See Nix v. Fulton Lodge No. 2 of Int’l Ass’n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers , 452 F.2d 794, 797

– 98 (5th Cir. 1971) (prior circuit opinions). The Appellants referred to the order in their complain ts ; its contents were undisputed; Waste Management at tached the order to its motion ; and it is a public document. It was proper to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds because it was “ apparent from the face of the complaint that the claim [was] time

barred.” La Grasta v. First Union Sec., Inc. , 358 F.3d 840, 846 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted)

. 2 The Appellants argued to the district court that their complaints should have related back to the earlier, joint action. But they do not press this argument on appeal, so it is abandoned. See Holland v. Gee , 677 F.3d 1047, 1066 (11th Cir. 2012).

Case: 14-13455 Date Filed: 03/26/2015 Page: 4 of 65 The Appellants have not met their burden

. To show they are entitled to equitable tolling, the Appellants must show extraordinary circumstances such as fraud, misinformation, or deliberate concealment. See Jackson , 506 F.3d at 1355. Equitable to lling of Title VII’s statute of limitations may be appropriate if (1) a state court action is pending; (2) the defendant concealed acts giving rise to a Title
VII claim ; or (3) the defendant misled the employee about the nature of his rights under Title VII. Manning v. Carlin , 786 F.2d 1108, 1109 (11th Cir. 1986). None of these circumstances is present here

. Beyond that, the Appellants did not act with due diligence. See Bost , 372 F.3d at 1242 ( “E quitable tolling i s inappropriate when a plaintiff did not file an action promptly or fai led to act with due diligence .” )

. The Appellants say that by appealing the severance order they acted with diligence. But our precedent is clear, and was at the time of their appeal, that a severance order is not immediately appealable

. See Hofmann , 642 F.3d at 997

– 99. Their mistaken belief to the contrary is not an extraordinary circumstance entitling the Appellants to equitable tolling. See Jackson , 506 F.3d at 1356 ( explaining th at “ [i] gnorance of the law does not, on its own, ” warrant equitable tolling ). The Appellants could have asked the district court to extend the thirty

- day period for filing their individual complaints until after the ir appeal, or they could have filed their complaints while pursuing the appeal. T hey did neither.

Case: 14-13455 Date Filed: 03/26/2015 Page: 5 of 66 They simply ignored the thirty

- day period and appeal ed a clearly nonappealable order. That is not diligence. AFFIRMED. Case: 14-13455 Date Filed: 03/26/2015 Page: 6 of 6