Sandres v. State Of Louisiana Division Of Administration et al

Filing 66

RULINGS: Pltfs motion to amend the motion not to dismiss (doc. 32) is GRANTED; Defts motion for partial dismissal of claims (doc. 20) is GRANTED, as stated; and Pltfs Motion Not to Dismiss, which has been construed as an opposition to the motion to d ismiss (doc. 28) is DISMISSED as moot. The matter having recently been reassigned to the undersigned, pltfs motions to transfer or reassign the matter (docs. 39, 59) and motion for leave to file an amended affidavit in support of transfer (doc. 40) are DISMISSED as moot. The motion for a temporary restraining order (doc. 55) is DISMISSED as moot. Pltfs motion for a preliminary injunction (doc. 55) is DENIED. Because the Court has ruled on all of plaintiffs other pending motions in this matter, pltfs motions for information as to the status of other motions (docs. 16,38, 41, 42, 48, 49, 58, 61, 65) are DISMISSED as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 9/23/2011. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NAOMI SANDRES
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 08-563-BAJ-CN
STATE OF LOUISIANA DIVISION
OF ADMINISTRATION OFFICE
OF RISK MANAGEMENT

RULINGS
The Court’s review of this matter upon its recent reassignment reveals
numerous pending motions. The Court addresses the motions herein, seriatim.
Defendant filed a motion for partial dismissal of the claims asserted in this
matter (doc. 20). Plaintiff specifically seeks dismissal of claims which are not fairly
within the scope of the plaintiff’s EEOC charge and seeks dismissal of any claims
which might be asserted in Paragraphs 13-16 of the complaint on ground that they
do not relate to any events that occurred in the course of her employment with the
defendant (doc. 24). Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion Not to Dismiss which is
the Court construes as an opposition to the motion to dismiss (doc. 28). Plaintiff
also filed a motion to amend her motion not to dismiss (doc. 32).
Plaintiff has asserted claims against defendant for race and age
discrimination and retaliation. To the extent plaintiff alleged in her EEOC charge
incidents that occurred in subsequent employment situations, the allegations have
no bearing on her claims in this matter. The remaining allegations in the EEOC
charge bear only on damages allegedly incurred as a result of the discriminatory
termination of her employment or upon alleged acts of retaliation by the defendant.

Moreover, plaintiff’s original complaint makes several conclusory allegations without
citing a factual basis or alleges facts that are not relevant to her Title VII claims (doc.
1, ¶¶ 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 16, 30). Similar irrelevant allegations are presented in the
Amended complaint (doc. 9, ¶¶ 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12).
For the foregoing reasons: (1) The motion to amend the motion not to dismiss
(doc. 32) is GRANTED; (2) The motion to dismiss is GRANTED insofar as
defendant seeks dismissal of claims arising out of incidents that allegedly occurred
after her employment with defendant or that are alleged to have occurred in the
course of her employment with any employer other than the defendant; (3) The
motion to dismiss is also GRANTED insofar as it seeks dismissal of claims asserted
in paragraphs 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, and 30 of the original complaint, and in
paragraphs 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the Amended Complaint; (4) The motion to
dismiss is DENIED insofar as it seeks dismissal of claims of retaliation that may
arise out of the facts asserted in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the original complaint; and
(5) Plaintiff’s Motion Not to Dismiss, which has been construed as an opposition to
the motion to dismiss (doc. 28) is DISMISSED as moot.
The matter having recently been reassigned to the undersigned, plaintiff’s
motions to transfer or reassign the matter (docs. 39, 59) and motion for leave to file
an amended affidavit in support of transfer (doc. 40) are DISMISSED as moot.
Plaintiff has also moved for a temporary restraining order to prevent
defendant from “the disposal of pertinent information documents or files while this
2

court waits to decide on the Motion to Dismiss or Not to Dismiss (doc. 55). The
motion to dismiss and the motion not to dismiss having been ruled upon, the motion
for a temporary restraining order is DISMISSED as moot.
Plaintiff has also moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent “the lay off of
the State employees she has named as witnesses in this case (doc. 50). However,
“[i]njunctive relief is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy,’ and should only be
granted when the movant has clearly carried the burden of persuasion.” Anderson
v. Jackson, 556 F.3d 351, 360 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting, Holland Am. Ins. Co. v.
Succession of Roy, 777 F.2d 992, 997 (5th Cir. 1974). “The party seeking such
relief must satisfy a cumulative burden of proving each of the four elements
enumerated before a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction can be
granted.” Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987). “Specifically, the
movant must show: (1) a substantial likelihood that plaintiff will prevail on the merits,
(2) a substantial threat that plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not
granted, (3) that the threatened injury to plaintiff outweighs the threatened harm the
injunction may do to defendant, and (4) that granting the preliminary injunction will
not disserve the public interest.” Holland Am. Ins Co., 777 F.2d at 997 (quoting,
Canal Auth. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974).
Plaintiff has failed to carry her burden of proving any of the four elements
necessary to obtain the injunctive relief sought. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for
a preliminary injunction (doc. 50) is DENIED.
3

Because the Court has ruled on all of plaintiff’s other pending motions in this
matter, plaintiff”s motions for information as to the status of other motions (docs. 16,
38, 41, 42, 48, 49, 58, 61, 65) are DISMISSED as moot.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, September 23, 2011.

BRIAN A. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

4