Linton v. Rowan-Cabarrus Cmty. Coll.

1 Citing case

  1. Chavez v. Credit Nation Auto Sales, Inc.

    966 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (N.D. Ga. 2013)   Cited 10 times
    Denying motions to strike exhibits to motion to dismiss and the response to the motion to dismiss because those filings were not pleadings

    Then, if appropriate, the parties may ask the Court to revisit this issue with a more fully developed record. See, e.g., Bradley v. DeKalb Cnty., No. 1:10–CV–0218–TWT–GGB, 2010 WL 4639240, at *4, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118467, at *11 (N.D.Ga. May 17, 2010) (recommending that motion to dismiss be denied because “[a]t this stage of the proceedings, the parties have not had a sufficient opportunity to develop the record for the court, on a motion to dismiss, to resolve a factual dispute regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies”), adopted by2010 WL 4638887, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118449 (N.D.Ga. Nov. 4, 2010); see also Page v. Postmaster Gen., 493 Fed.Appx. 994, 998 (11th Cir.2012) (unpublished decision) (vacating grant of motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint as time-barred, and remanding “to hold an evidentiary hearing or to allow the case to proceed so that the record may be more fully developed” on the issue of equitable tolling); Linton v. Rowan–Cabarrus Comm. College, No. 1:10CV404, 2013 WL 1331680, at *5, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45403, at *14 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 2013) (denying motion to dismiss because “Plaintiff has plausibly alleged sufficient facts to reasonably invoke the doctrine of equitable tolling,” but noting that “Defendants may raise this issue after discovery on a motion for summary judgment”).