Maripat Gatter v. CEP America-Missouri, LLLP

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMarch 25, 2025
Docket24-2259
StatusUnpublished

This text of Maripat Gatter v. CEP America-Missouri, LLLP (Maripat Gatter v. CEP America-Missouri, LLLP) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Maripat Gatter v. CEP America-Missouri, LLLP, (8th Cir. 2025).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-2259 ___________________________

Maripat L. Gatter

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

CEP America-Missouri, LLLP; CEP America, LLC

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: March 20, 2025 Filed: March 25, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before SMITH, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM. Maripat Gatter appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of her Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) action as untimely. After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the complaint was untimely. See Humphrey v. Eureka Gardens Pub. Facility Bd., 891 F.3d 1079, 1081 (8th Cir. 2018) (reviewing de novo grant of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss claim as time-barred); see also McDonald v. St. Louis Univ., 109 F.4th 1068, 1071 (8th Cir. 2024) (concluding plaintiff received notice of right to sue when counsel received agency email with link to right-to-sue letter, even if counsel was not then able to read letter); Hallgren v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 331 F.3d 588, 589 (8th Cir. 2003) (failure to file suit within 90 days of receiving notice of final agency action renders plaintiff’s ADEA action untimely). We consider the equitable tolling argument waived because Gatter did not raise it before the district court. Rivera v. Bank of Am., N.A., 993 F.3d 1046, 1051 (8th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Shirley P. Mensah, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-

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

Related

Herb Hallgren v. United States Department of Energy
331 F.3d 588 (Eighth Circuit, 2003)
James Humphrey v. Eureka Gardens Public Facility
891 F.3d 1079 (Eighth Circuit, 2018)
Scott Rivera v. Bank of America, N.A.
993 F.3d 1046 (Eighth Circuit, 2021)
Rachel McDonald v. St. Louis University
109 F.4th 1068 (Eighth Circuit, 2024)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Maripat Gatter v. CEP America-Missouri, LLLP, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maripat-gatter-v-cep-america-missouri-lllp-ca8-2025.