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.

Moore v. McCarthy

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

January 10, 2020

EDGAR L. MOORE, Plaintiff,
v.
RYAN D. MCCARTHY, Acting Secretary of the Army, Defendant.

          SECOND ORDER RENOTING MOTION TO DISMISS

          ROBERT J. BRYAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 19) and Plaintiff's Motion to Request More Time (Dkt. 26). The Court is familiar with the motions, materials filed in opposition and support thereto, and the remainder of the record herein. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion to Request More Time should be granted and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss should be renoted to January 31, 2020, to allow Plaintiff more time to obtain counsel.

         I. BACKGROUND

         In this case, Plaintiff, pro se, claims that his former employer, at the Community Recreation Division, Department of Army Directorate of Family, Morale, Welfare, and Recreation, at Joint Base Lewis-McCord, discriminated against him based on his race and disability. Dkt. 3.

         The Court, by its November 7, 2019 Order on Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 24), denied, in part, [1] Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, granted Plaintiff's request for a continuance to obtain legal counsel, and renoted the remaining issues of the Motion to Dismiss for consideration on January 3, 2020.

         Plaintiff did not timely respond to the remaining issues of the Motion to Dismiss, despite the Court filing a warning to Plaintiff regarding deadlines and the instant motion to dismiss. Dkt. 21. On January 2, 2020, Defendant filed a Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 25. Defendant's reply provides, in part, the following:

No attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of Plaintiff. Plaintiff, either pro se or through legal counsel, has not filed a response or opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss, which should have been filed by December 30, 2019. Accordingly, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant his motion to dismiss as to the remainder of the motion not decided by Order dated November 7, 2019.

Dkt. 25, at 2 (citations omitted).

         Plaintiff filed a Motion to Request More Time on January 2, 2020. Dkt. 26. The motion states only that, “[a]s the Plaintiff, I'm asking for an extension due to the complexity of the legal case and finding a qualified attorney to deal with federal employment law.” Dkt. 26.

         Defendant filed a response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Request More Time. Dkt. 27. Defendant argues, in part, that:

Plaintiff is not entitled to additional time. The allegations of Plaintiff's complaint relate to events that occurred years ago, apparently in 2012 and 2014. Memories fade and witnesses may be more difficult to locate as time passes. Defendant is unfairly prejudiced by an additional extension and, particularly under these circumstances, where the Court has already granted one extension continuing the noting date from November 1, 2019, to January 3, 2020, is entitled to a timely resolution of the matter.

Dkt. 27, at 2.

         On January 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply. Dkt. 28. Plaintiff reports that he has been diligently searching for counsel. Plaintiff provides the names and general locations of three firms he claims to have contacted. Plaintiff adds, “But due to the holiday season and each attorney's schedule, I was not able to obtain counsel.” Dkt. 28, at 1. Plaintiff further states that, on January 8, 2020, he received a referral for counsel from the Seattle Litigation Group to have his case reviewed. Plaintiff explains that he was instructed to deliver his records to the Gustad Law Group, which he claims to have delivered on January 9, 2020. Plaintiff remarks that “counsel will need time to review my case.” Dkt. 28, at 1.

         II. ...


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.