The opinion of the court was delivered by: William M. Skretny Chief Judge United States District Court
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action on or about July 20, 2009, by filing a complaint in New York State Supreme Court, County of Erie. He asserts claims for breach of contract (Docket No. 1-2, ¶¶ 14, 15), and discrimination and retaliation relating to his employment (¶¶ 11, 13, 17). Defendants removed the action to this Court on July 31, 2009, based on federal question jurisdiction.
Presently before the Court are Defendant Roswell Park Cancer Institute's ("RPCI") Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 8), and Plaintiff's "Motion[s] Breach the Agreement," both of which are asserted against RPCI only (Docket Nos. 27 and 39). All motions are fully briefed and the Court finds oral argument is not necessary. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motions are denied, and RPCI's motion is granted.
Plaintiff had and has several actions pending in this Court against one or both of the Defendants here. The first action, 08-CV-355, was brought against both Defendants and was resolved by Confidential Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement"). This current suit is predicated on an alleged breach of that Agreement. After the action was removed to this Court, Plaintiff filed two motions claiming that RPCI engaged in subsequent conduct that gave rise to additional breaches.
The first motion, filed on October 22, 2009, alleges that RPCI breached the Agreement's confidentiality provision when it attached a copy of the Agreement to its Notice of Removal filed on July 31, 2009. (Docket No. 27.) On October 22, 2009, Plaintiff filed this very same motion in 08-CV-355, at Docket No. 91. Upon full consideration, this Court denied the motion (08-CV-355, Docket No. 109), and Plaintiff's duplicative motion here likewise is denied.
The second motion, filed on October 28, 2009, alleges that RPCI had its attorney issue Plaintiff a letter, the content of which violates the Agreement. (Docket No. 39.) On October 28, 2009, Plaintiff filed this very same motion in 08-CV-355, at Docket No. 96. Upon full consideration, this Court denied the motion (08-CV-355, Docket No. 109), and Plaintiff's duplicative motion here likewise is denied.
Plaintiff hereby is cautioned that inundating the Court and opposing counsel with duplicative filings may result in sanctions.
B. RPCI's Motion to Dismiss
Read in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, his Complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et. seq., and the New York State Human Rights Law ("HRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 et seq.
Federal pleading standards are generally not stringent. Rule 8 requires only a short and plain statement of a claim. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). But the plain statement must "possess enough heft to show that the pleader is entitled to relief." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557, 127 ...