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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?