Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Battle v. Finish Line, Inc, 1:16-CV-4490-ODE-WEJ. (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. Georgia Number: infdco20171222e03 Visitors: 18
Filed: Nov. 22, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 22, 2017
Summary: FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION WALTER E. JOHNSON , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, LaShandra Battle, filed the instant Complaint [1] alleging that defendant. Finish Line, Inc., discriminated against her based on race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981. This case is before the Court on defendant's Motion to Dismiss [13]. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that said Motion be GRANTED. I. DISCUSSION On March 31, 201
More

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, LaShandra Battle, filed the instant Complaint [1] alleging that defendant. Finish Line, Inc., discriminated against her based on race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. This case is before the Court on defendant's Motion to Dismiss [13]. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that said Motion be GRANTED.

I. DISCUSSION

On March 31, 2017, plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration [8]. Plaintiff stated that she had signed an Arbitration Agreement [8-1], which she attached to the Motion to Stay, and requested a 180-day stay in order to comply with that agreement and engage in arbitration. (Pl.'s Mot. Stay 2.) The Arbitration Agreement requires the parties to resolve employment-related claims exclusively via binding arbitration and imposes a 180-day deadline to engage in arbitration after a demand has been filed. (Id. Ex, 1.) The Court granted [9] plaintiffs Motion and stayed the case as requested.

On October 5, 2017, the Court issued an Order noting that the 180-day stay had expired and that defendant had indicated that no arbitration occurred. On October 6, plaintiffs counsel indicated via email to the Court's Deputy Clerk and opposing counsel that he would be filing an arbitration request that day. (See Def's Mot. Dismiss Ex. 1 [13-2].)

On November 6, 2017, defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss, stating that plaintiff had failed to file a demand for arbitration or otherwise initiate that process. (Def's Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss [13-1] 4.) Plaintiff has failed to respond to defendant's Motion, and the time to do so has expired.

When a plaintiff fails to respond to a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), granting the motion based solely on the party's failure to respond is within the discretion of a district judge. See Magluta v. Samples, 162 F.3d 662, 664-65 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Moreover, plaintiff has acknowledged signing the Arbitration Agreement and failing to follow the 180-day deadline therein for initiating arbitration of employment-related claims. Based on those circumstances, the undersigned REPORTS that dismissal is appropriate, and RECOMMENDS that defendant's Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED,

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that defendant's Motion to Dismiss [13] be GRANTED and the Complaint [1] be DISMISSED.

The Clerk is directed to terminate the reference to the undersigned Magistrate Judge.

SO RECOMMENDED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer