Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Buckley v. Doha Bank Ltd.

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

July 25, 2002, Decided ; July 29, 2002, Filed

01 Civ. 8865 (AKH)

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.:

Pro se plaintiff Flora Buckley filed this employment discrimination action against her former employer, defendant Doha Bank, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e)(1)-(17). Defendant moves to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and (6). For the reasons explained below, I deny defendant's motion and extend plaintiff's time to effect service of process nunc pro tunc to February 7, 2002.

I. Background

On October 3, 2001, plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed a complaint pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(1)-(17), against her former employer, defendant Doha Bank Limited. Plaintiff's complaint alleges employment discrimination on the basis of her national origin and gender, as well as sexual harassment and retaliation. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the New [*2]  York State Division of Human Rights on August 31, 1999. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") adopted the findings of the state agency denying plaintiff's claim and issued a Right to Sue Letter dated June 19, 2001. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that she did not receive the Right to Sue Letter until September 6, after she had sent two letters to the EEOC, dated July 20, 2001 and August 31, 2001, stating that she had not yet received a Right to Sue Letter.

With her complaint, plaintiff included a letter stating that she attempted to file the complaint on September 11, 2001, but was unable to do so because of the attacks on the World Trade Center. She alleges that she attempted again to file on both September 18, 2001 and September 19, 2001, but was unable to do so because the Court was closed. Plaintiff again visited the Court on September 27, 2001 and obtained forms for filing her complaint from the Pro Se Office. Plaintiff mailed the complaint to the Pro Se Office on September 28, 2001. The Pro Se Office received and filed the complaint on October 3, 2001.

By letter dated January 11, 2002, before she had served process on defendant, plaintiff requested an adjournment [*3]  of the initial pretrial conference, explaining that she had forwarded documents for review to an attorney she was attempting to retain and they had not yet been returned to plaintiff. By memo-endorsement of January 16, 2002, I adjourned the conference until February 8, 2002. The summons and complaint were served on the defendant on February 7, 2002.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13769 *; 2002 WL 1751372

FLORA BUCKLEY, Plaintiff, -against- DOHA BANK LIMITED, Defendant.

Disposition:  [*1]  Defendant's motion to dismiss denied. Plaintiff's time to effect service of process nunc pro tunc extended to February 7, 2002.

CORE TERMS

pro se, statute of limitations, notice, Rights, mailed

Governments, Legislation, Statute of Limitations, Time Limitations, Labor & Employment Law, Discrimination, Title VII Discrimination, General Overview, Regulators, US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tolling, Waivers, Civil Actions, Civil Procedure, Pleadings, Time Limitations, Affirmative Defenses, Statutory Construction, Service of Process, Untimely Service, Responses, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Courts, Court Records, Real Property Law, Mortgages & Other Security Instruments, Mortgage Insurance, Private Mortgage Insurance, Extension of Time, Parties, Pro Se Litigants