Johnson v. Menifee, City of

E.D. Arkansas

Johnson v. Menifee, City of

DecidedJuly 22, 2024

Docket4:24-cv-00082

StatusUnknown

This text of Johnson v. Menifee, City of (Johnson v. Menifee, City of) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. Menifee, City of, (E.D. Ark. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION LOLITA K. JOHNSON PLAINTIFF

v. CASE NO. 4:24-CV-00082-BSM CITY OF MENIFEE DEFENDANT ORDER The City of Menifee’s motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 11] is granted because Lolita Johnson’s complaint is time-barred. Johnson was required file her Title VII lawsuit within ninety days of receiving her right to sue letter from the EEOC. Hales v. Casey’s Mktg. Co., 886 F.3d 730, 736 (8th Cir. 2018). The letter was issued on October 19, 2023. Am. Original Compl. 45, Doc. No. 6. Because Johnson has not shown exactly when she received the letter, it is presumed to have arrived three days later on October 23, 2023. See Compl. 2, Doc. No. 2; Hales, 886 F.3d at 736; Br. Supp. Mot. Dismiss 6, Doc. No. 12. Ninety days from that date is January 22, 2024. Jd. And Johnson did not file suit until January 31, 2024. See Compl. 1. For these reasons, her claims are time-barred and must be dismissed with prejudice. See Reese v. Correct Care Sols., LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00007 KGB, 2019 WL 4463288, at *2—3 (E.D. Ark. Sept. 17, 2019). IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION LOLITA K. JOHNSON PLAINTIFF

v. CASE NO. 4:24-CV-00082-BSM CITY OF MENIFEE DEFENDANT ORDER The City of Menifee’s motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 11] is granted because Lolita Johnson’s complaint is time-barred. Johnson was required file her Title VII lawsuit within ninety days of receiving her right to sue letter from the EEOC. Hales v. Casey’s Mktg. Co., 886 F.3d 730, 736 (8th Cir. 2018). The letter was issued on October 19, 2023. Am. Original Compl. 45, Doc. No. 6. Because Johnson has not shown exactly when she received the letter, it is presumed to have arrived three days later on October 23, 2023. See Compl. 2, Doc. No. 2; Hales, 886 F.3d at 736; Br. Supp. Mot. Dismiss 6, Doc. No. 12. Ninety days from that date is January 22, 2024. Jd. And Johnson did not file suit until January 31, 2024. See Compl. 1. For these reasons, her claims are time-barred and must be dismissed with prejudice. See Reese v. Correct Care Sols., LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00007 KGB, 2019 WL 4463288, at *2—3 (E.D. Ark. Sept. 17, 2019). IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Johnson v. Menifee, City of, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-menifee-city-of-ared-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack