Vasudevan v. Tulane University et al
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
ADMINISTRATORS OF TULANE
EDUCATIONAL FUND, ET AL.
SECTION: “J” (5)
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
Educational fund (“Defendants”).
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
Thus, Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment was to be filed by January 24, 2017.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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
(Rec. Doc. 52-1 at 3.)
And although Plaintiff
also hand delivered a copy of the opposition to chambers on
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.
These failures have
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s
Having stricken Plaintiff’s opposition, the Court will now
review Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as an unopposed
The Court finds that Defendants’ motion for summary
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.
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).
has failed to show that Defendants’ decision not grant her tenure
violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or 42 U.S.C. §
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
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?