Smith v. Jupiter Aluminum Corporation, No. 2:2009cv00356 - Document 33 (N.D. Ind. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 29 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. The motion is DENIED in regard to treating the defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as a Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTED with respect to the extension of time to respond. Response to be filed by 11/12/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 10/26/10. (mc)

Download PDF
Smith v. Jupiter Aluminum Corporation Doc. 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION HAWKINS SMITH, JR., Plaintiff v. JUPITER ALUMINUM CORPORATION, Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:09-cv-356 OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the Motion to Treat Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as a Motion for Summary Judgment and Extension of Time in Which to Respond [DE 29] filed by the plaintiff, Hawkins Smith, Jr., on July 16, 2010. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED in regard to treating the defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as a Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTED with respect to the extension of time to respond. Background The plaintiff, Hawkins Smith, Jr., alleges that he was discriminated against by his employer, the defendant Jupiter Aluminum Corporation, because of his race. He filed a claim with the EEOC and was issued a Right to Sue letter. complaint on September 22, 2009. Smith filed a The defendant moved for a judgment on the pleadings on July 26, 2010, arguing that Smith Dockets.Justia.com raised issues in his complaint that were not included in the claim he filed with the EEOC. Smith responded by filing this motion, arguing that Jupiter’s reference to the EEOC claim converts Jupiter’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to a Motion for Summary Judgment. Discussion Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d) provides that if matters outside the pleadings are presented to support a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment. However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(c) states that any exhibit to a pleading is considered part of the pleading to which it is attached. "Documents that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss are considered part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and are central to her claim." Venture Associates Corp. v. Zenith Data Systems Corp., 987 F.2d 429, 431 (7th Cir. 1993). See Ed Miniat, Inc. v. Globe Life Ins. Group, Inc., 805 F.2d 732, 739 n.12 (7th Cir. 1986). Although Smith did not attach his EEOC claim, his complaint references this document. The existence of this EEOC claim is essential to Smith’s case because Title VII requires a claimant to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to moving forth with his claim. See Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 2 U.S. 820, 832, 96 S.Ct. 1961, 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976); Patel v. Derwinski, 778 F.Supp. 1450, 1454 (N.D. Ill. 1991). Absent proof of his EEOC claim, the court would not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Therefore, Smith’s EEOC claim is incorporated into the pleadings by reference, and the court DENIES Smith’s Motion to Treat Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as a Motion for Summary Judgment. Smith is DI- RECTED to file a response no later than November 12, 2010. ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2010. s/ Andrew P. Rodovich United States Magistrate Judge 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.