United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
ANTWOIN HUNT, JAMES ZOLLICOFFER, NORMAN GREEN, JAMES LEWIS and KEVIN JAMES, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated laborers, Plaintiffs,
PERSONNEL STAFFING GROUP, LLC d/b/a MVP, THE SEGERDAHL CORP., MERCURY PLASTICS, INC., MPS CHICAGO, INC. d/b/a JET LITHO, THE PENRAY COMPANIES, INC., ADVERTISING RESOURCES, INC. d/b/a ARIPACKAGING, LAWRENCE FOODS, INC. and BLOMMER CHOCOLATE COMPANY, Defendants.
ADVERTISING RESOURCES, INC. Katherine F. Mendez One of Its
Richard P. McArdle Jennifer A. Riley Katherine F. Mendez
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP.
FINNEGAN MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
DEFENDANT ADVERTISING RESOURCES INC.'S MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS REGARDING PLAINTIFFS'
TIME-BARRED § 1981 CLAIMS
J. THARP, JR. HONORABLE JUDGE.
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c), Defendant Advertising Resource Inc.
(“ARI”) hereby joins the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to
Dismiss filed by Defendants The Segerdahl Corp.
(“Segerdahl”) and Lawrence Foods
(“Lawrence”), Docket No. 51. In joining the
Motion to Dismiss, ARI moves this Court for entry of judgment
in favor of ARI for Plaintiffs' Section 1981 claims
alleged in Count VI of Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint
(“Complaint”) that are based on events occurring
before December 6, 2014. All such claims are time-barred by
the applicable two-year statute of limitations, Plaintiffs
having first filed this lawsuit on December 6, 2016.
hereby incorporates the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 51) and
supporting Memorandum of Law (Dkt. 53) filed by Defendants
Segerdahl and Lawrence into ARI's Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings. In further support hereof, ARI states:
Plaintiffs assert that Defendant MVP, a temporary labor
agency, and certain of MVP's alleged client companies,
including ARI, discriminated against African American
temporary laborers in violation of the Civil Rights Act of
1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section
1981”). See Compl. ¶ 1.
Count VI of Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts that ARI
violated Section 1981 because of its “discriminatory
practices in hiring.” See Compl. ¶ 126.
Plaintiffs' Complaint seeks to certify an “ARI
Subclass” of “All African-Americans who sought
work assignments…and were eligible to work at
Advertising Resources, Inc. d/b/a ARI Media at any time
between December 6, 2012 and the date of
judgment…” See id. at ¶ 82(e).
Defendant ARI filed its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint
on February 17, 2017. Dkt. No. 35.
its Answer, Defendant ARI asserted that Plaintiffs'
Section 1981 claims were time-barred to the extent they did
not comply with the applicable two-year statute of
limitations. See id. at p. 52, Twelfth Defense.
Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is reviewed
under the same standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
for Failure to State a Claim, the primary difference being
that a Rule 12(c) motion is filed after an Answer. See
Buchanan-Moore v. County of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827
(7th Cir. 2009) (stating that a Rule 12(c) motion is filed
after an answer but reviewed under the same standard as a
Rule 12(b)(6) motion); Pisciotta v. Old National
Bancorp, 499 F.3d 629, 633 (7th Cir. 2007); Northern
Indiana Gun & Outdoor Shows, Inc. v. City of South
Bend, 163 F.3d 449, 452 (7th Cir. 1998).
Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is an
appropriate mechanism for challenging claims that are
time-barred by a statute of limitations. See Brownmark
Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners, 682 F.3d 687, 690 (7th
Cir. 2012) (noting that it is well-established in the 7th
Circuit that Rule 12(c) is appropriate for raising a statute
of limitations challenge); Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d
574, 579 (7th Cir. 2009); Frey v. Bank One, 91 F.3d
45 (7th Cir. 1996) (granting a Rule 12(c) motion on statute
of limitations grounds).
for the above and foregoing reasons and those stated in the
Motion to Dismiss and supporting Memorandum of Law previously
filed by Defendants Segerdahl and Lawrence, Defendant ...