7/31/2019 Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint-06!24!2012

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/plaintiffs-reply-to-defendants-response-to-plaintiffs-motion-for 1/3

IN THE KANSAS FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT

AT KANSAS CITY

ANNETTE TINDALL, )

)

PLAINTIFF, )

)

V. ) Case No. 11-2503-JAR/JPO

)

)

FREIGHTQUOTE.COM, INC, ET AL., )

)

DEFENDANTS. )

)

PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, Annette Tindall, (“Plaintiff”) and submits her Reply to

Freightquote.com., Inc. and Eric Findlay (“Defendants”) Response to Plaintiff's

Motion to Amend Complaint, and states as follows:

1. “Leave to amend a complaint shall be freely given when justice so

requires” , Plaintiff's access to court to redress all of Defendants' continuing

unlawful employment practices required Plaintiff to file her Amended

Complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); Forman v. Davis, 372 U.S. 178, (1962).

2. Plaintiff's complaint is not a model of the careful drafter's art, but under the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint need not pin Plaintiff's claims

for relief to a precise legal theory.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires only

7/31/2019 Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint-06!24!2012

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/plaintiffs-reply-to-defendants-response-to-plaintiffs-motion-for 2/3

a plausible “short and plain” statement of the plaintiff's claims, not a

exposition of her legal argument. Sec. 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal

Practice & Procedure § 1219, pp 277-278 (3d ed. 2004) and Supp. 2010);

Skinner v. Switzer 131 S.Ct. 1289 (2011).

3. Plaintiff continues to repudiate that she agreed to resign from her 

employment with Freightquote as part of Freightquote's purported settlement

agreement, therefore, the parties did not reach an agreement on all essential 

terms at the Court ordered ADR Settlement Conference.

4. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint also invokes the Court's jurisdiction pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 regarding Eric Findlay, Plaintiff's immediate supervisor,

seeking relief from his retaliatory disciplinary actions taken against Plaintiff 

in response to her filing EEOC charges and Freightquote's wrongful

termination and retaliatory termination of Plaintiff's employment.

5. Furthermore, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 does not mandate that Plaintiff exhaust 

her administrative remedies with the Equal Employment Opportunities

Commission (“EEOC”) prior to filing in federal court nor that Plaintiff 

 file her claims in federal court within ninety (90) days of receiving a

 Right-to-Sue Letter from EEOC, moreover, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims have

statutes of limitation of four (4) years from the occurrence(s) of the

discriminatory and/or retaliatory action(s).

7/31/2019 Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint-06!24!2012

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/plaintiffs-reply-to-defendants-response-to-plaintiffs-motion-for 3/3

Respectfully submitted,

 ____________________ 

Annette Tindall

2415 Brooklyn Ave.

Kansas City, Mo. 64127

(816) 719-9958

Plaintiff, Pro se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this June 24, 2012, I served a copy of the foregoing

 by US Mail postage prepaid to the following:

Karen Glickstein120 West 12th Street

Kansas City, Missouri 64105

Attorneys for Defendant

 ____________________ 

Annette Tindall