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.

Randolph v. One Source Temporary Service

United States District Court, D. Kansas

April 6, 2018

LATREISSA DARSHELLE RANDOLPH, Plaintiff,
v.
ONE SOURCE TEMPORARY SERVICE, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          KATHRYN H. VRATIL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         LaTreissa Darshelle Randolph, pro se, brings suit against One Source Temporary Service for employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. See Employment Discrimination Complaint (Doc. #1) filed December 11, 2017. On March 5, 2018, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and provided notice of plaintiff's obligation to respond under Rule 56, Fed. R. Civ. P., and D. Kan. Rule 56.1. See Defendant Labor Source, LLC's Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. #13); Notice To Pro Se Litigant Who Opposes A Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. #15). Pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 56.1(d)(2), plaintiff had 21 days or until March 26, 2018 to respond to the summary judgment motion. Plaintiff did not file a response by that date.

         On March 28, 2018, two days after the response was due, plaintiff filed a Motion For New Hearing And Extension Of Time To Respond To Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. #19). In the motion, plaintiff states as follows:

I LaTreissa Randolph, apologize for missing the date for defendant's pending motion for summary judgment on March 26, 2018. I am asking the summary Judge, James O' Hara, if April 3, 2018 would be a good time to see me as the next court time would be April 5th, 2018, [w]hen I would file my mediation notice. I also will content, [sic] Kevin D. Case the defendant lawyer to assure the meeting.

Motion (Doc. #19).

         To the extent plaintiff asks the Court to schedule a meeting or hearing, she does not state the purpose or need for such meeting or hearing. Absent such information, the Court overrules plaintiff's request.

         To the extent plaintiff requests an extension of time to respond to the summary judgment motion, her motion does not comply with the requirements of D. Kan. Rule 6.1(a). That rule states as follows:

         All motions for an extension of time to perform an act required or allowed to be done within a specified time must show:

(1) whether there has been prior consultation with other parties and the views of other parties;
(2) the date when the act was first due;
(3) if prior extensions have been granted, the number of extensions granted and the date of expiration of the last extension; and
(4) the cause for the requested extension.
Parties must file the motion before the specified time expires. Absent a showing of excusable neglect, the court will not grant extensions requested after the specified time expires.

D. Kan. Rule 56.1(a). Plaintiff's motion does not state (1) whether plaintiff has consulted with defendant and the views of defendant or (2) the cause for the requested extension. In addition, plaintiff did not file the motion before her response time expired ...


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.