|Tracy's Attorney Louis Leo, IV
FAU has filed a devastating motion to dismiss James Tracy's "roll your eyes" rhetoric and conspiracy laden federal complaint. The words used to summarize the motion summarize it better than I could, so that is highlighted in the next paragraph with emphasis by me.
Then I provide some highlights from the motion.
For those who wish to read it all, a link is below.
Let's hope the court sees fit to dump this case down the toilet, where it belongs.
You can read Tracy's horribly penned complaint here.
Page 2 highlight - "Tracy's complaint is conspiracy bullcrap"
Plaintiff’s forty-seven page Complaint contains over two-hundred unsupported conclusory allegations and thirty-six exhibits in an attempt to deter and distract the Court from the true core of this matter: that this case relates only to a simple for-cause termination as a direct result of Plaintiff’s intentional and willful failure to comply with both the University and the Union’s direct and repeated instructions to comply with a policy applicable to the faculty members at AU. Instead, Plaintiff attempts to use the Complaint, and the Court’s resources, as his soapbox to launch vindictive claims against individuals, not his employer, by way of unsupported conclusory rhetoric unsupported with a factual basis. Despite the sensationalized allegations against seventeen members of FAU’s Board of Trustees, the University’s President, Provosts, and Administrators (in both their official and personal capacities), Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state even a single viable claim against any of the twenty-two defendants, requiring dismissal of this action in its entirety.Page 3 highlight: "More Tracy bullcrap, no facts"
Plaintiff fails to provide any facts connecting any individual FAU Defendant with an act or omission relating to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Instead, Plaintiff proceeds with general and conclusory allegations based upon conspiratorial conjecture against seventeen individuals, which fails to meet this Court’s clearly established pleading standards.Page 3 highlight 2: "Immunities"
For instance, it is well established that Defendant University is an arm of the state and is entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Likewise, claims against the FAU Defendants in their official capacity are also barred under the Eleventh Amendment. Further, each FAU Defendant, in their personal capacity, is immune from suit based upon absolute and qualified immunity, and therefore, each should be dismissed from this suit.Page 3 highlight 3: "Vague facts - The complaint rambled with nonsense"
Finally, the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety as a shotgun pleading because (i) each count adopts the allegations of the previous counts and is replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action.Page 14 highlight - "Tracy's attorney is dumb and forgot to plead the elements"
In support of his claims of conspiracy in Count VII, Plaintiff merely states in a conclusory fashion that the seventeen individual FAU Defendants reached an agreement, acted alone or in concert with others (including unknown and unnamed co-conspirators), conspired to accomplish an unlawful purpose, and committed overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. Somehow, the FAU Defendants accomplished this feat without ever speaking to one another, as Plaintiff’s Count VI and VII fail to allege that the Defendants ever had a conversation about Plaintiff.
(Plaintiff) failed to identify even one act they were alleged to have personally taken in furtherance of a conspiracy. “Simply put, such conclusory allegations, with no factual support, are insufficient to state a claim.”
Page 17-19 highlights: "Someone really needs to Continuing Education on pleadings"
PLAINTIFF’S ENTIRE COMPLAINT AMOUNTS TO AN IMPERMISSIBLE SHOTGUN PLEADING
In addition to the numerous pleading defects identified above, Plaintiff’s Complaint exhibits all of the hallmarks of the long-maligned shotgun pleading style and should therefore be dismissed in its entirety. Recently, the Eleventh Circuit acknowledged its thirty-year criticism of shotgun pleading defects, and outlined the four most common categories of shotgun pleadings, all of which are on display in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
First – and most common – type of shotgun pleading style because it adopts the allegations of all preceding counts.
Second-most common form of shotgun pleading style by including conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts throughout that are not obviously connected to any of Plaintiff’s causes of action
(SHF Note's Tracy's complaint is really bad about this -- it rambles on about a lot of nonsense.)
Third type of shotgun pleading style by failing to separate each of cause of action into a separate count. For example, Count VII alleges a conspiracy to interfere with Plaintiff’s civil rights but it is not clear to the Defendant University or individual FAU Defendants with which specific constitutional rights they are alleged to have conspired to interfere, as several constitutional violations are alleged in the previous counts.
This is funny (and pathetic):
While the fourth type of shotgun pleading style is the rarest according to the Eleventh Circuit, it is the error committed most frequently in Plaintiff’s Complaint, which repeatedly fails to specify which of the several Defendants is responsible for which act or omission.
Jury Trial is currently set for 5/30/17 at 9:00 am with Motions in December 2016 and Mediation in March 2017.
If you are inclined to read the rest, here it is: