Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Eaton v. Wayne Cent. Sch. Dist.

United States District Court, W.D. New York

June 2, 2014

FAYE EATON, JACQUELINE SIWICKI, MAUREEN M. DOYLE, Plaintiffs,
v.
WAYNE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants

Page 371

For Jacqueline Siwicki, Faye M Eaton, Plaintiffs: Emmelyn S. Logan-Baldwin, LEAD ATTORNEY, Rochester, NY.

For Maureen M Doyle, Plaintiff: Emmelyn S. Logan-Baldwin, LEAD ATTORNEY, Rochester, NY; Leo G. Finucane, LEAD ATTORNEY, Finucane & Hartzell, Pittsford, NY.

For Wayne Central School District, Board of Education of the Wayne Central School District, Frank Robusto, Individually and as former president of the Wayne Central School District Board of Education, Joyce Lyke, Individually and as Member of the Wayne Central School District Board of Education, Richard Johnson, Individually and as Former Member of the Wayne Central School District Board of Education, Jeff Schultz, Individually and as Former Member of the Wayne Central School District Board of Education, Scott Griswold, Individually and as Former Member of the Wayne Central School District Board of Education, Mark Wyse, Individually and as Former Member of the Wayne Central School District Board of Education, Susan Newman, Individually and as Former Member of the Wayne Central School District Board of Education, Tom Nicholson, Individually and as Member of the Wayne Central School District Board of Education, Gerald Champagne, Individually and as Member of the Wayne Central School District Board of Education, Karen Moore, Individually and as Member of the Wayne Central School District Board of Education, Dom Paz, Individually and as Member of the Wayne Central School District Board of Education, Debra Hibbard, Individually and as Member of the Wayne Central School District Board of Education, Jeremy Eaton, Individually and as Member of the Wayne Central School District Board of Education, Matt Prinsen, Individually and as Member of the Wayne Central School District Board of Education, Sylvia Hungerford, Individually and as Special Education Teacher of the Wayne Central School District Board of Education, Robert Armocida, Individually and as Former Wayne Central School District Middle School Principal, Michael Havens, Individually and as Former Wayne Central School District Superintendent, Mark Callahan, Individually and as Former Wayne Central School District Director of Human Resources, Renee A Garrett, Individually and as Wayne Central School District Superintendent, Marc Blankenberg, Individually and as Wayne Central School District Athletic Director, John Triou, Individually and as Former Member of the Wayne Central School District Board of Education, Defendants: Edward J. Smith, III, Smith, Sovik, Kendrick & Sugnet, P.C., Syracuse, NY.

Page 372

DECISION AND ORDER

DAVID G. LARIMER, United States District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Faye Eaton, Jacqueline Siwicki and Maureen Doyle (" plaintiffs" ), bring this action against the Wayne Central School District (the " District" ), its Board of Education and a number of individual school administrators, employees and Board of Education members (collectively " defendants" ), alleging that the District engaged in unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (" Title VII" ) the New York Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 293 et seq. (" NYHRL), the New York Civil Rights Law, N.Y. Civ. R. Law § 40-c et seq. (" NYCRL" ), and unspecified portions of the United States Constitution.

On or about April 5, 2007, plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendants in state court, alleging discrimination and retaliation claims (the " State Court Action" ). (Dkt. #8-4). On or about February 27, 2013, plaintiffs filed the initial complaint in this case in state court, asserting nearly identical facts to those alleged in the 2007 State Court Action. (Dkt. #1-2). Plaintiffs later amended their 2013 state court complaint to assert federal claims under Section 1983 and Title VII, whereupon the matter was removed to this Court. (Dkt. #1-3, #8-3).

The State Court Action and this matter have proceeded independently from one another. Defendants now move to dismiss the instant case on the grounds that the claims asserted in the complaint are already the subject of the State Court Action, are untimely, are insufficiently stated and/or that plaintiffs have failed to comply with jurisdictional prerequisites. (Dkt.#8). Plaintiffs opposed the motion solely via a cross motion to remand the case to state court, which was denied by this Court after a hearing and due consideration on October 3, 2013. (Dkt. #10). For the reasons that follow, defendants' motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard for Dismissal Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6)

In deciding whether a complaint should be dismissed for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.