Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
HARDNETT v. CRACKERBOX #33
October 21, 2005.
JAMES HARDNETT, MAURICE SEGREST, On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated Plaintiffs,
CRACKERBOX #33, LLC, INC., ET AL., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: GEORGE HOWARD Jr., District Judge
Plaintiffs filed this action alleging that defendants
discriminated against them on the basis of race. Plaintiffs
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII and
the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 ("ACRA"), Ark. Code Ann. §
16-123-101 et seq. Plaintiffs worked in the two stores in Pine
Bluff, and contend that the District Manager over both the
stores, Joe Laliberte, used racial slurs and wrongfully
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative
a motion for a more definite statement. Plaintiffs counter that
they have sufficiently stated a claim for race discrimination.
Plaintiffs have named at least sixteen Crackboxes as defendants.
According to the allegations in the complaint, these Crackerbox
stores are located in Arkansas and Laliberte is the manager of
all of them. Plaintiffs contend that they as well as other
African-American employed at this stores are discriminated
against on the basis of race. While not particularly a model
complaint in terms of allegations, the complaint sufficiently
states a claim for race discrimination and sufficiently places
defendants on notice of the claims, such that defendants can file
a response to the complaint.
Thus, the Court finds that the motion to dismiss or in the
alternative a motion for a more definite statement is denied. Plaintiffs have also filed a motion for extension of time to
file for class certification. Plaintiffs state they need to
obtain additional information and conduct discovery on the class
certification issues. Plaintiffs seek an almost 4 month
extension, or until January 20, 2006, to file their motion for
Defendants object. Defendants state that they have, through
initial disclosures and responses to interrogatories, provided
plaintiffs with sufficient information for use in a class
certification motion. They state that review of the documentation
should not take four months.
The Court is not of the opinion that the amount of time
requested is excessive given the parties' schedules and the
intervening holidays. Thus, the Court will grant plaintiffs until
January 20, 2006, to file their motion for class certification.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss or in the alternative for a
more definite statement is denied; the motion to extend the
deadline for the motion class certification is granted.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...
Buy This Entire Record For