Nayak v. Voith Turbo Inc

Filing 192

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Chief Magistrate Judge Schwabs Report and Recommendation 166 is ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiffs objections 181 , are OVERRULED; 3. Defendant Voiths motion [92} to dismiss Plaintiffs amended complaint is GRANTED; 4. Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Voith are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to TERMINATE Defendant Voith as a Defendant in this action; 6. Plaintiffs appeal/objection to Chief Magistrate Judge Schwabs July 19, 2017 Order (Doc. No. 182), is OVERRULED; and 7. This case is recommitted to Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Yvette Kane on 9/25/17. (rw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SANDEEP NAYAK,
Plaintiff
v.
VOITH TURBO, INC., et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 1:14-cv-1053
(Judge Kane)
(Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab)

ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Before the Court in the above-captioned action are Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab’s July
19, 2017 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 166), recommending that the Court grant
Defendant Voith Turbo, Inc.’s (“Voith”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff Sandeep Nayak’s amended
complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. No. 92), and
Plaintiff’s objections to Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab’s Report and Recommendation (Doc.
No. 181). Additionally before the Court is Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. No. 182), to Chief
Magistrate Judge Schwab’s Order entered concurrently with the Report and Recommendation
(Doc. No. 164), denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint as futile
(Doc. No. 137).
This lawsuit arises from Plaintiff’s employment as a sales manager for Voith in York,
Pennsylvania.1 Given the long and complex procedural posture of this case, and the parties’

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a total of four separate civil actions in this Court
arising out of the circumstances of his employment with Voith. In addition to the instant action,
Plaintiff initiated civil action number 1:14-cv-2211, asserting claims against Matthew Herbison,
Paul T. Barlow, Jason Hoffman, and J. Bradley Martin, which was ultimately consolidated into
this case. Plaintiff also sued his former counsel – the CGA Law Firm and Anne E. Zerbe, Esq. –
in Nayak v. CGA Law Firm, No. 1:13-cv-2533, an action that was ultimately dismissed by Judge
1

accompanying familiarity with the allegations underlying it, and in light of Chief Magistrate
Judge Schwab’s extensive discussion of the factual and procedural background of Plaintiff’s
claims in her July 19, 2017 Report and Recommendation, the Court limits its discussion here to
Plaintiff’s objections to Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab’s Report and Recommendation and
corresponding Order.
In his objections to Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab’s Report and Recommendation,
which recommends granting Defendant Voith’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against it as
barred by the Release executed by Plaintiff, Plaintiff generally objects to Chief Magistrate Judge
Schwab’s recitation of the facts alleged in the amended complaint, or what he characterizes as
her omission or disregard of certain facts and failure to consider reasonable inferences that he
maintains can be drawn from the facts alleged. (Doc. No. 181 at 3-13.) Plaintiff also objects to
Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab’s dismissal of his claims asserted under state law. (Id. at 13.)
The Magistrate Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636 et seq., and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure provide that any party may file written objections to a magistrate’s proposed findings
and recommendations. In deciding whether to accept, reject, or modify the Report and
Recommendation, the Court is to make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report
and Recommendation to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The written
objections must “specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or

Caldwell. See Nayak, No. 1:13-cv-2533, 2014 WL 2042165, at *3 (M.D. Pa. May 19, 2014),
aff’d, 620 F. App’x 90, 91 (3d Cir. 2015). Moreover, Plaintiff filed civil action number 1:15-cv933, asserting claims against the CGA Law Firm and Zerbe, as well as Voith’s counsel, McNees
Wallace & Nurick LLC and Brian F. Jackson, Esq., which was dismissed by the undersigned on
November 30, 2016. See Nayak v. McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, No. 1:15-cv-933, 2016 WL
6995485, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2016). Plaintiff’s appeal of that dismissal remains pending
before the Third Circuit.
2

report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections.” L.R. 72.3.
Informed by the standards governing the Court’s review of a Report and
Recommendation to which objections have been made, and having considered Plaintiff’s
objections, and Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab’s Report and Recommendation, the Court finds
Plaintiff’s objections to be without merit. Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab thoroughly
considered all potentially relevant factual allegations in Plaintiff’s amended complaint in
determining that Plaintiff has not alleged, and indeed, cannot allege, any facts which, if proven,
would invalidate the Release executed by Plaintiff. As Defendant Voith correctly notes, the
omitted facts or inferences about which Plaintiff complains amount to no more than unsupported
conclusory allegations that the Court need not accept as true when considering a motion to
dismiss. See Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010) (stating that in
considering a motion to dismiss, a court “should identify allegations that, ‘because they are no
more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth’”) (citation omitted). As to
Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab’s recommendation to dismiss all claims asserted against Voith,
including claims asserted pursuant to state law, the Court similarly finds Plaintiff’s objection to
be meritless, as the Release unambiguously applies to all claims, including state law claims.
With regard to Plaintiff’s objection to Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab’s July 19, 2017
Order denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint, the Court agrees
that the filing of such a first amended complaint would be futile, as the proposed first amended
complaint, filed with Plaintiff’s motion, includes claims that have been previously dismissed
with prejudice as well as claims barred by the terms of the Release Plaintiff executed.

3

ACCORDINGLY, upon independent review of the record and applicable law, on this
25th day of September 2017, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 166), is
ADOPTED;

2.

Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. No. 181), are OVERRULED;

3.

Defendant Voith’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. No.
92), is GRANTED;

4.

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Voith are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE;

5.

The Clerk of Court is directed to TERMINATE Defendant Voith as a Defendant
in this action;

6.

Plaintiff’s appeal/objection to Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab’s July 19, 2017
Order (Doc. No. 182), is OVERRULED; and

7.

This case is recommitted to Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab for further
proceedings.2

s/ Yvette Kane
Yvette Kane, District Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania

2

As Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab noted in her Report and Recommendation, the only
claim remaining in this case is Plaintiff’s state law battery claim against Defendant Barlow.
4