Wednesday, June 15, 2016

FAU files Motion to Dismiss James Tracy Complaint

"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. "  FAU's Motion to Dismiss

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"

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:

No comments: