Vasudevan v. Tulane University et al

Filing 55

ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 52 ) is GRANTED. It is ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 30 ) is GRANTED. It is ORDERED that 53 Motion to Expedite is GRANTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that all of Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier. (gec)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NANDINI VASUDEVAN

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 16-284

ADMINISTRATORS OF TULANE
EDUCATIONAL FUND, ET AL.

SECTION: “J” (5)

ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc.
30), a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 52), and a Motion to
Expedite the Motion to Strike (Rec. Doc. 53) filed by Michael
Bernstein,

Nicholas

Altiero,

and

Educational fund (“Defendants”).

Administrators

of

Tulane

For the reasons described below,

the Court finds that Defendants’ motions should be GRANTED and all
of Plaintiffs’ claims should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
On January 20, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment (Rec. Doc. 30) and noticed the motion for submission on
February 1, 2017.

See (Rec. Doc. 30-18.)

Pursuant to Local Rule

7.5, any opposition to a motion noticed for submission must be
filed “no later than eight days before the noticed submission
date.”

Thus, Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment was to be filed by January 24, 2017.

1

Plaintiff filed a Motion for extension of Time to File a Reply
(Rec. Doc. 32) requesting an extension of thirty days, until
February 21, 2017, to file her opposition.

(Rec. Doc. 32-1 at 2.)

Defendants

thirty

did

not

consent

to

the

full

day

extension

requested, but did consent to a fourteen day extension.

Id. at 1.

On January 24, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion and
provided her an extension of fourteen days, making the deadline
for filing an opposition Tuesday, February 7, 2017.
Doc. 37.)
2017.

See (Rec.

Plaintiff did not file an opposition by February 7,

Instead, on February 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for

leave to file her opposition out of time (Rec. Doc. 40).
The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to file an opposition
out of time and extended the deadline for filing an opposition to
February 13, 2017, at noon.

(Rec. Doc. 42.)

In the same Order,

the Court provided Defendants until February 15, 2017 to file a
reply to the opposition.

Id.

Plaintiff once again failed to file

any opposition by the Court’s deadline.

Rather, on February 13,

2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Seal her Opposition (Rec. Doc.
46) and a Motion to File Excess Pages (Rec. Doc. 47).
were marked deficient by the Clerk of Court.

Both motions

More importantly,

neither motion included a proposed pleading of the opposition
memorandum as an attachment.

It was not until February 15, 2017,

at 2:43 PM, that Plaintiff hand delivered a copy of the opposition
to Defendants.

(Rec. Doc. 52-1 at 3.)
2

And although Plaintiff

also hand delivered a copy of the opposition to chambers on
February

15,

2017,

Plaintiff

has

yet

to

file

the

opposition

electronically and also has not corrected the deficient motions to
seal and for leave to file excess pages.
As demonstrated above, Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to
comply with the Court’s filing deadlines.
prejudiced Defendants.

These failures have

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s
Opposition

to

Motion

for

Summary

Judgment

(Rec.

Doc.

52)

is

GRANTED.
Having stricken Plaintiff’s opposition, the Court will now
review Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as an unopposed
motion.

The Court finds that Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment

has

merit

with

respect

to

Plaintiff’s

claims

of

discrimination and retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, and Plaintiff’s claim for race-based conspiracy
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).

The Court is aware of the

deference it is to apply when reviewing university decisions.

See

Dorsett v. Bd. Of Trustees for State Colleges and Univs., 940 F.2d
121, 124 (5th Cir. 1991) (“Of all fields that the federal courts
should hesitate to invade and take over, education and faculty at
the university level are probably the least suited for federal
supervision.”) (internal citations omitted).

Further, Plaintiff

has failed to show that Defendants’ decision not grant her tenure
3

violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or 42 U.S.C. §
1985(3).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(Rec. Doc. 30) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all of Plaintiff’s claims are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 17th day of February, 2017.

____________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4