Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pickney v. Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Co. LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division

April 25, 2018

SCENTER PICKNEY
v.
STRATEGIC RESTAURANTS ACQUISITION COMPANY LLC, ET AL.

          PATRICK J. HANNA, JUDGE

          RULING

          TERRY A. DOUGHTY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment. [Doc. No. 36]. The motion is fully briefed, and the Court is prepared to rule.

         Plaintiff filed this suit on February 15, 2016, asserting claims for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; the Civil Service Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq.

         In response, on June 6, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration, to Stay Proceedings, and for an Award of Reasonable Attorney's Fees on grounds that Plaintiff was required to submit her claim to arbitration in accordance with an arbitration agreement. [Doc. No. 11]. On January 24, 2017, oral arguments were held before Magistrate Judge Patrick Hanna. On February 6, 2017, Magistrate Judge Hanna issued a Report and Recommendations suggesting that the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings be granted in part and denied in part. [Doc. No. 21]. Magistrate Judge Hanna concluded that that the lawsuit should be stayed and that Plaintiff should be ordered to submit her claims to arbitration, but that Defendants were not entitled to attorney's fees and costs.

         In response, on February 16, 2017, Defendants filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendations contesting the denial of attorney's fees and costs. [Doc. No. 22]. Plaintiff did not respond. Consequently, on March 9, 2017, Judge James entered a Memorandum Ruling and a Judgment adopting in part and declining to adopt in part Magistrate Judge Hanna's Report and Recommendations. [Doc. Nos. 23 & 24]. Specifically, the March 9, 2017 Judgment adopted the recommendation that the lawsuit be stayed and that Plaintiff be ordered to submit her claims to arbitration, but declined to adopt the recommendation that Defendants not be awarded attorney's fees and costs. Again, Plaintiff did not respond. Thus, on March 30, 2017, Defendants' legal counsel filed a Motion for Bill of Costs, seeking attorney's fees in the amount of $13, 302.00 and costs. [Doc. No. 25]. Once again, Plaintiff did not respond.

         On May 4, 2017, Judge James entered Judgment against Plaintiff, awarding Defendants attorney's fees, but in the reduced amount of $10, 095.00. [Doc. No. 27].

         Plaintiff filed a pro se letter motion on August 9, 2017, [Doc. No. 29], which the Court construed as a request for an extension of time in which to secure and retain counsel, inasmuch as the proceedings had been stayed pending arbitration. On August 21, 2017, the Court ordered that the stay of proceedings be lifted for the limited purpose of allowing Plaintiff to enroll counsel, and ordered Plaintiff to either enroll counsel or give notice of her intent to proceed pro se, no later than September 18, 2017.

         Plaintiff's new counsel filed a motion to enroll on September 18, 2017. [Doc. No. 33]. However, the pending Motion for Relief from Judgment was not filed until March 20, 2018. [Doc. No. 36].

         Plaintiff requests relief from the March 9, 2017 Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.P. 60(b)(6), and relief from the May 4, 2017 Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1), and alternatively, Rule 60(b)(6).

         Under Rule 60(b), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.