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.

Woods v. Mannứꙺ Filtration Technology U.S. LLC

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

February 28, 2019

CHARLES A. WOODS, Plaintiff,
v.
MANNᵃఐ FILTRATION TECHNOLOGY U.S. LLC, MANNᵃఐ USA, INC., and MANNᵃఐ FILTRATION TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC., Defendants.

          ORDER

          David C. Keesler, Judge

         THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on "Defendants' Motion To Compel" (Document No. 23). This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion and the record, the undersigned will grant the motion.

         BACKGROUND

         Charles A. Woods ("Plaintiff or "Woods") initiated this action with the filing of his "Complaint" (Document No. 1-1) in the Superior Court of Gaston County, North Carolina on May 25, 2017. "Defendants' Notice Of Removal" (Document No. 1) was filed on October 10, 2017. Mannứꙺ Filtration Technology U.S. L.L.C., Mannứꙺ Filtration USA, Inc., and Mannứꙺ Filtration Technology Group, Inc. (together, "Defendants" or "Mannứꙺ") then filed a "Motion To Dismiss" (Document No. 4) on October 16, 2017. Defendants' "Motion To Dismiss" was subsequently denied as moot after Plaintiff filed an "Amended Complaint" (Document No. 8) on November 6, 2017. See (Document No. 9).

         According to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants for forty-three (43) years - between 1972 and 2015. (Document No. 8, p. 3). Plaintiff purportedly never took any time off until 2015, after he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Id. Following surgery in April 2015, Plaintiff contends he was able to return to work in August 2015. (Document No. 8, p. 4). However, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants refused requests for reasonable accommodations based on Plaintiff's physical difficulties, refused requests to transfer to a comparable job, refused requests for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), and refused to allow him to return to work. (Document No. 8, pp. 4-5).

         Defendants' renewed “Motion To Dismiss” (Document No. 10) was filed on November 20, 2017. The Court subsequently directed Plaintiff to file a “Second Amended Complaint, ” and the renewed motion to dismiss was also denied as moot. See (Document No. 16, 18, 19).

         The “Second Amended Complaint” asserts eight (8) counts, which include claims of: race discrimination; retaliation; violation of the FMLA; violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); wrongful discharge in violation of the public policy of North Carolina, pursuant to the North Carolina Equal Employment Practices Act (“NCEEPA”) N.C. Gen.Stat. 143; and violation of the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (“NCWHA”). (Document No. 18, pp. 7-14).

         The parties' “Certification And Report Of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(F) Conference And Discovery Plan” (Document No. 20) was filed on August 23, 2018. The Court then issued its “Pretrial Order And Case Management Plan” (Document No. 22) on August 29, 2018. The “…Case Management Plan” includes the following deadlines: Rule 26 Disclosures - September 30, 2018; Discovery Completion - February 28, 2019; Dispositive Motions - March 28, 2019; and Trial - September 2, 2019. (Document No. 22). The “…Case Management Plan” also states that “[f]ailure to comply with any of the provisions of this Order which causes added delay or expense to the Court may result in the imposition of sanctions as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Document No. 22, p. 11).

         On January 25, 2019, the pending “Defendants' Motion To Compel” (Document No. 24) was filed. The motion to compel asserts that Plaintiff has failed to provide his initial disclosures or any responses to Defendants' discovery requests. (Document No. 24).

         On February 8, 2019, a day after his response to the pending motion was due, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking additional time to file a response. (Document No. 26). Plaintiff also stated that he would “provide these remaining discovery responses” on Monday, February 11, 2019. (Document No. 26, p. 2). The Court allowed Plaintiff additional time but noted that: “the instant motion is not timely filed since Plaintiff's response to the motion to compel was due by February 7, 2019; moreover, it does not appear that Plaintiff's counsel fully complied with the requirement of consultation pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b).” (Document No. 27).

         “Plaintiff's Response To Defendants' Motion To Compel” (Document No. 28) was filed on February 11, 2019; “Defendants' Reply To Plaintiff's Response To Defendants' Motion To Compel” (Document No. 29) was filed on February 14, 2019.

         The pending motion is now ripe for review and disposition.

         STANDARD ...


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.