ALEXANDER et al v. THE CITY OF GREENSBORO et al

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows: (1) 27 Defendant City of Greensboros Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is DENIED as to Plaintiffs breach of contract claim (Count I); it is GR ANTED as to all other claims against the City (Counts II, III, IV, V, VI, VIII, IX [sic] (Injunction)), which are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (2) 29 Defendant Trudy Wades Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is DENIED as to Plaintiffs claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage against Wade in her individual capacity (Count VII in part); it is GRANTED as to all other claims against Wade (Counts IV, V, VI, VII in part, VIII, IX (Civil Conspi racy), IX [sic] (Injunction)), which are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (3) 24 Defendant David Wrays Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is DENIED as to: (a) Plaintiffs hostile work environment claim under 42 U.S.C.
67; 1981 against Wray in his individual capacity (Count II in part); (b) Plaintiff Steven A. Evans disparate treatment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Wray in his individual capacity (Count II in part); and (c) Plaintiffs Equal Protection c laim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Wray in his individual capacity (Count V in part). The motion is DENIED AS MOOT as to: (a) Plaintiff Lawrence Alexander Jr.s disparate discipline claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Wray in his individu al capacity (Count II in part); (b) Plaintiff Antuan Hinsons Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Wray in his individual capacity (Count V in part); and (c) Plaintiff Antuan Hinsons invasion of privacy claim against Wray in his individual capacity (Count VI in part), insofar as the proposed SAC may be filed as to these claims. The motion is GRANTED as to all other claims against Wray (Counts II in part, III, IV, V in part, VI in part, VIII, IX (Civil Conspiracy), IX [sic] (Injunction)), which are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (4) 22 Defendants Randall Brady and Scott Sanders Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is DENIED as to: (a) Plaintiffs hostile work environment claim under 42 U.S.C . § 1981 against Brady and Sanders in their individual capacities (Count II in part); (b) Plaintiff Steven A. Evans disparate treatment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Brady and Sanders in their individual capacities (Count II in part) ; and (c) Plaintiffs Equal Protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Brady and Sanders in their individual capacities (Count V in part). The motion is DENIED AS MOOT as to: (a) Plaintiff Lawrence Alexander Jr.s disparate discipline claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Brady and Sanders in their individual capacities (Count II in part); (b) Plaintiff Antuan Hinsons Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Brady and Sanders in their individual capacities (Count V in part); and (c) Plaintiff Antuan Hinsons invasion of privacy claim against Brady and Sanders in their individual capacities (Count VI in part), insofar as the proposed SAC may be filed as to these claims. The motion is GRANTED as to all other cla ims against Brady and Sanders (Counts II in part, III, IV, V in part, VI in part, VIII (as to Brady), IX (Civil Conspiracy), IX [sic] (Injunction)), which are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (5) 32 Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Comp laint is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED as to: (a) Plaintiffs breach of contract claim against the City (Count I); (b) Plaintiffs hostile work environment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Wray, Brady, and Sanders in their individual capacities (Count II in part); (c) Plaintiff Steven A. Evans disparate treatment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Wray, Brady, and Sanders in their individual capacities (Count II in part); (d) Plaintiff Lawrence Alexande r Jr.s disparate discipline claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Wray, Brady, and Sanders in their individual capacities (Count II in part); (e) Plaintiffs Equal Protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Wray, Brady, and Sanders in th eir individual capacities (Count V in part); (f) Plaintiff Antuan Hinsons Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Wray, Brady, and Sanders in their individual capacities (Count V in part); (g) Plaintiff Antuan Hinsons invasion of p rivacy claim against Wray, Brady, and Sanders in their individual capacities (Count VI in part); and (h) Plaintiffs claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage against Wade in her individual capacity (Count VII in part). Otherwise, the motion is DENIED on grounds of futility. Plaintiffs shall file their Second Amended Complaint in conformance with this order within twenty (20) days. Signed by JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 1/5/2011. (Solomon, Dianne)