§Why CasetextPricing

Reed v. Inter-Fab Inc.

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

11 Cited authorities

  1. Baldwin Cty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown

    466 U.S. 147 (1984)   Cited 2,627 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff "who fails to act diligently cannot invoke equitable principles to excuse that lack of diligence"

  2. Graham-Humphreys v. Memphis Brooks Museum

    209 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2000)   Cited 1,182 times
    Holding that the ninety day statute of limitations begins running on the fifth day following the EEOC's mailing of the right to sue notification

  3. Truitt v. Cty of Wayne

    148 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 1998)   Cited 453 times
    Holding that “the ninety-day period should be tolled during the pendency of a plaintiff's IFP application”

  4. Peete v. American Standard Graphic

    885 F.2d 331 (6th Cir. 1989)   Cited 72 times
    Holding that Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(e) does not "extend the statutory ninety-day period within which suit must be brought under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f), by three days where, as is the usual practice, the right-to-sue letter is mailed to the plaintiff"

  5. Williams v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.

    143 F. Supp. 2d 941 (W.D. Tenn. 2001)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that plaintiff's "inability or delay in procuring counsel is not a sufficient excuse" for missing the 90-day filing deadline

  6. Manley v. New York City Police Department

    Case No. CV-05-679(FB)(LB) (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2005)   Cited 19 times
    Dismissing plaintiff's claims as untimely for filing 91 days after receipt of the right-to-sue letter, despite plaintiff's arguments that he “lost track of time” and thought the days were calculated by business days, not calendar days

  7. Wilson v. Doctors Hosp. of Hyde Park

    909 F. Supp. 580 (N.D. Ill. 1996)   Cited 24 times
    Dismissing pro se plaintiff's Title VII claim filed 91 days after receipt of right to sue letter

  8. Richman v. United States

    No. 16-cv-02403-JDT-tmp (W.D. Tenn. Jun. 17, 2016)

    No. 16-cv-02403-JDT-tmp 06-17-2016 ELROY LADELL RICHMAN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. TU M. PHAM United States Magistrate Judge REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On June 7, 2016, pro se plaintiff Elroy Ladell Richman filed a complaint for violations of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the United States. (ECF No. 1.) The same day, Richman also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which the court granted on June 8, 2016. (ECF Nos. 2 & 5.) On June 17, 2016, Richman filed

  9. Kyles v. Staff Management, Inc.

    Case No. 01 C 8697 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 30, 2002)   Cited 6 times
    Granting motion to dismiss complaint as untimely, noting that the "factual claims" relating to equitable tolling, which the pro se plaintiff raised in her brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss, "were not included in the complaint and therefore [would not] be considered by the court on motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)"

  10. Section 2000e-5 - Enforcement provisions

    42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5   Cited 26,861 times   124 Legal Analyses
    Holding charges must be made in writing, under oath, and contain all information as the Commission requires

  11. Section 626 - Recordkeeping, investigation, and enforcement

    29 U.S.C. § 626   Cited 6,048 times   44 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the statute of limitations under the Portal-to-Portal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 255