Nagarajan v. Hargrove et al

Filing 34

ORDER: That Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes' Report and Recommendation [Dkt. No. 22, filed January 30, 2017] is ADOPTED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 15, filed March 17, 2017] is GRANTED IN P ART and DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff claims for Title VII punitive damages are BARRED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Samuel Hargrove, Jeanetta Jackson, Linda Woodruff, Mark Hardy, Glenda Glover, Lonnie Sharpe, and Sand ra Scheick are DISMISSED from this cause of action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 26] against TSU is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before February 12, 2018, Plaintiff sha ll file with the Court an Amended Complaint consistent with the representations made in his Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, specifically those at page 9 (see Dkt. No. 26, PgID 412) and in his objections to the Report and Recommendation (see Dkt. No. 29, PgID 427 at n.1). Signed by Visiting Chief Judge Denise Page Hood on 1/16/18. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
GOVINDASWAMY NAGARAJAN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00495
Hon. Denise Page Hood

v.
SAMUEL HARGROVE, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS [#15] AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT [#26]
On January 30, 2017, Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes entered a Report
and Recommendation regarding Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. At the time the
Report and Recommendation was issued, Plaintiff was a pro se litigant. Shortly
afterward, Plaintiff retained an attorney, and his attorney filed objections to the
Report and Recommendation, to which Defendants filed a response, and Plaintiff
filed a reply. Plaintiff’s attorney also filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint shortly after the Report and Recommendation was issued. Defendants
filed a response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint.
A.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
The Court has had an opportunity to review the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation and the parties’ filings regarding the Report and Recommendation.
The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusions for the
proper reasons with respect to: (1) determining that the individual Defendants cannot
be sued under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employement Act (“ADEA”)
(unless he or she qualifies independently as an “employer,” which is indisputably not
the case with respect to the individual Defendants); and (2) concluding that Title VII
punitive damages cannot be awarded against a state or its agencies. Finding no error
in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation regarding those two
conclusions, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation insofar as it
recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s Title VII claims against the individual
Defendants and his claim for Title VII punitive damages claims against Defendant
Tennessee State University (“TSU”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Title VII and ADEA
claims against the individual Defendants are dismissed and Plaintiff is precluded from
seeking Title VII punitive damages against Defendant TSU.
The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s cause of action should not be dismissed
in its entirety. As the Magistrate Judge and Defendants noted, Plaintiff commenced
this action pro se (the fifth pro se lawsuit Plaintiff has filed in the Middle District of
Tennessee). Although it is not Plaintiff’s first pro se case, the Court still must view
his pro se pleadings with some measure of liberality. It is true that Plaintiff’s request
2

for relief in both his handwritten form complaint and in the 24-page typed filing
attached to his form complaint only specifies $50,000,000 in punitive damages. But,
it is also true that: (1) Plaintiff’s typed complaint is titled “Complaint for Declaratory
Judgment, and Damages;” [Dkt. No. 1, PgID 5] and (2) the first paragraph of his
typed complaint asks that the Court “issue a declaratory judgment, compensatory, and
punitive damages” and states that he has suffered from “irrepable mental anguish and
humiliation” because of Defendants “intentionally inflicted upon him high emotional
stress.” [Dkt. No. 1, PgID 5-6] The Court concludes that, for purposes of Plaintiff’s
pro se pleadings in this matter, Plaintiff adequately put Defendant on notice that
Plaintiff was seeking declaratory relief and damages, in addition to the punitive
damages expressly mentioned in the requested relief section. Plaintiff is not barred
from seeking declaratory relief and compensatory damages in relation to his
allegations. Accordingly, the Court holds that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss must
be denied with respect to Plaintiff’s Title VII and ADEA claims against TSU, to the
extent that Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and compensatory damages.
B.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint
Plaintiff filed his cause of action on March 7, 2016. As noted above, the

Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation regarding Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss on January 30, 2017. About that time, Plaintiff contacted James
3

G. Stranch, III (“Plaintiff’s retained counsel”) to provide legal representation, and
Plaintiff’s retained counsel filed objections to the Report and Recommendation and
a reply to Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s objections. Within weeks of meeting
with Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s retained counsel also filed the Motion for Leave to File
Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s retained counsel sought 30 days to file an amended
complaint to amend the Plaintiff’s “poorly drafted” complaint. Plaintiff’s retained
counsel did not attach a proposed amended complaint, but he represents that it is
anticipated that the “amended complaint will have far fewer defendants and will seek
a different remedy. It will still allege discrimination based on race, national origin,
and age. It will still allege retaliation.” Dkt. No. 26, PgID 412.
Defendants argue that leave to amend the complaint should be denied.
Defendants assert that the case was a year old at the time the Motion for Leave to File
Amended Complaint was filed, that Plaintiff offered no explanation for the delay in
obtaining counsel, and that it is not even clear that Plaintiff’s retained counsel
believes there is a viable cause of action because he needs to research and investigate
the 6 to 8 inches of documents Plaintiff provided Plaintiff’s retained counsel before
filing an amended complaint.
The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint should be granted. Plaintiff’s pro se complaints contain sufficient
4

allegations to support Title VII and ADEA claims against TSU. Although the case
is more than 18 months old, there have not been any prior amendments to the
complaints, and the Court finds that there has not been any undue delay. Plaintiff’s
retained counsel contacted the Court and filed the Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint promptly after meeting with Plaintiff.

The Court concludes that

Defendants will not be not unduly prejudiced, especially as the individual Defendants
have been dismissed. For those reasons, and because leave to amend “should be
freely given when justice so requires,” F.R.Civ.P. 15(a), the Court grants Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and orders that Plaintiff file his
Amended Complaint on or before January 16, 2018.
C.

Conclusion
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes’ Report

and Recommendation [Dkt. No. 22, filed January 30, 2017] is ADOPTED IN PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 15,
filed March 17, 2017] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff claims for Title VII punitive
damages are BARRED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Samuel Hargrove, Jeanetta
5

Jackson, Linda Woodruff, Mark Hardy, Glenda Glover, Lonnie Sharpe, and Sandra
Scheick are DISMISSED from this cause of action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 26] against TSU is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before February 12, 2018, Plaintiff
shall file with the Court an Amended Complaint consistent with the representations
made in his Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, specifically those at page
9 (see Dkt. No. 26, PgID 412) and in his objections to the Report and
Recommendation (see Dkt. No. 29, PgID 427 at n.1).
IT IS ORDERED.

January 16, 2018

s/Denise Page Hood
DENISE PAGE HOOD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SITTING BY SPECIAL DESIGNATION

6