Antoniewicz et al v. The University of Texas Health and Science Center at Houston et al

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 9 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment ; converting the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. Defendants shall file any supplemental briefing and evidence supporting their arguments within 10 days of th e date of this order. Plaintiffs shall file responsive briefing and attach any evidence indicating that there is an issue of material fact with regard to this particular claim within twenty days of the date of this order.(Signed by Judge Gray H. Miller) Parties notified.(rkonieczny, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DR. LEAH ANTONIEWICZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH AND
SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTON , et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION H-14-2083

ORDER
Pending before the court are two motions by Defendants: 1) a partial motion to dismiss,
partial motion for summary judgment and motion for more definite statement (Dkt. 9), and 2) an
amended motion to dismiss, motion for more definite statement, and motion to require a Schultea
reply (Dkt. 10), which defendants docketed as an amendment to Dkt. 9. At the outset, the court
denies Dkt. 9 as moot. See In re B.O.G., 48 S.W.3d 312, 316 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, pet. denied)
(“Amended motions substitute for and relate back in time to the motions they amend, if the amended
motion does not pertain to a wholly new, distinct, or different matter.”).
As to Dkt. 10, the defendants have split the motion in to four parts: 1) a motion to dismiss
on the basis that plaintiffs did not timely file their charges of discrimination with the EEOC; 2) a
motion to dismiss the Section 1983 claims against defendants Faro and Blackwell in their official
capacity; 3) a motion to require plaintiffs to plead the Section 1983 claims against defendants Faro
and Blackwell in their individual capacity with more specificity; and 4) a motion to require plaintiffs
to file a Shultea reply to defendants Faro and Blackwell’s assertion of qualified immunity.

The court is converting the first part of the motion, the motion to dismiss on the basis that
plaintiffs did not timely file their charges of discrimination with the EEOC, into a motion for
summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(d). When a motion to dismiss
is converted to a motion for summary judgment, “[a]ll parties must be given a reasonable opportunity
to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.” Id. Accordingly, defendants shall file any
supplemental briefing and evidence supporting their arguments within 10 days of the date of this
order. Plaintiffs shall file responsive briefing and attach any evidence indicating that there is an issue
of material fact with regard to this particular claim within twenty days of the date of this order. The
court is particularly interested in evidence indicating when charges of discrimination were filed with
the EEOC, and the timing of the alleged discriminatory actions by defendants.
Signed at Houston, Texas on April 9, 2015.

___________________________________
Gray H. Miller
United States District Judge

2