DASILVA et al v. STATE OF INDIANA et al
| Indiana Southern District Court | |
| Judge: | Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Referred: | Doris L Pryor |
| Case #: | 1:19-cv-02453 |
| Nature of Suit | 442 Civil Rights - Employment |
| Cause | 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination |
| Case Filed: | Jun 18, 2019 |
| Last checked: Sunday Dec 15, 2019 4:08 AM EST |
|
Defendant
CURTIS T. HILL, JR.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
STATE OF INDIANA
|
Represented By
|
|
Intervenor Defendant
Indiana House of Representatives
|
Represented By
|
|
Intervenor Defendant
Indiana Senate
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
NIKI DASILVA
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
SAMANTHA LOZANO
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
GABRIELLE MCLEMORE
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
MARA REARDON
|
Represented By
|
GPO
Mar 02 2020
over Plaintiffs' state law claims for battery, defamation, and false light invasion of privacy, and those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re-file them in state court; The Amended Motions to Intervene, [56; 58], are DENIED AS MOOT; The Motions to Stay, [87; 93], are DENIED AS MOOT; and To the extent Plaintiffs wish to file a Second Amended Complaint which sets forth claims that the Court has not dismissed with prejudice for example, Title VII claims against their respective employers they must do so by March 27, 2020. Absent the filing of a Second Amended Complaint, the Court will issue a final judgment thereafter. If a Second Amended Complaint is filed, Plaintiffs may request the issuance of a partial final judgment for their claims against the State and Attorney General Hill. (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/2/2020. (JDH) Modified on 3/2/2020 (JDH).rney General Hill in his individual capacity, 85, is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' federal claims and their state law claim for sexual battery, and those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdictionORDER - There is no doubt that the allegations as to Attorney General Hill's actions toward Plaintiffs at the Sine Die Celebration, which the Court must accept as true at this stage of the litigation, describe disgraceful and reprehensible conduct. But the highly offensive nature of the alleged acts does not meet the legal standard necessary to establish a violation of any federal law or the Constitution of the United States by Attorney General Curtis Hill. With respect to Plaintiffs' allegations about their workplace environment, they may be legally cognizable. However, Plaintiffs may only bring Title VII claims against the governmental entity that employs them, not the State of Indiana. As set forth above: The Motion to Dismiss filed by the State and Attorney General Hill in his official capacity, 91, is GRANTED and Plaintiffs' claims against the State and Attorney General Hill in his official capacity are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; The Motion to Dismiss filed by Atto |
|
|
GPO
Jun 09 2020
ORDER - The Court GRANTS IN PART Attorney General Hill's Motion to Dismiss, 118, to the extent that it dismisses Plaintiffs' state law claims for battery, defamation, and false light invasion of privacy for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiffs to re-file them in state court. The Court DENIES IN PART Attorney General Hill's Motion to Dismiss, 118, to the extent that it declines to award sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE Attorney General Hill as a Defendant in this case and is DIRECTED to TERMINATE Mara Reardon as a Plaintiff in this case. The Court DENIES Attorney General Hill's Motion for Sanctions, 130.The Title VII claims asserted by Ms. DaSilva, Ms. Lozano, and Ms. McLemore against the House and Senate will proceed. The Court notes that it is just short of one year since Plaintiffs initiated this litigation, yet the docket reflects more than 130 docket entries, which include twenty substantive motions filed by the parties. Now that the proper parties and claims are before the Court, the parties are encouraged to focus on the efficient resolution of Plaintiffs' claims. To that end, the Court requests that the Magistrate Judge confer with the parties regarding a possible resolution of this matter short of trial. (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/9/2020. (JDH) |
|
|
GPO
Jun 09 2020
ORDER - The Court finds that there is no just reason for delay and GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Partial Final Judgment, 120. Final judgment as to Plaintiffs' claims against the State and Attorney General Hill in both his official and individual capacities shall enter accordingly. (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/9/2020. (JDH) |
|
|
GPO
Nov 17 2022
ORDER - The Court's decision should in no way be read to condone the reprehensible behavior of Attorney General Hill - behavior that no woman should have to face, especially at the hands of one of the state's highest elected officials. Although this litigation started out targeting that behavior, it now focuses only on the House's and the Senate's actions in response to that behavior. Because Attorney General Hill's misconduct does not rise to the level that the Seventh Circuit has determined is actionable under Title VII, and because no reasonable jury could conclude that the House and the Senate failed to take reasonable action in response to that misconduct or that Plaintiffs faced actionable retaliation for reporting that misconduct, there is no basis on which to hold the House or the Senate liable. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the House's Motion for Summary Judgment, 231, and the Senate's Motion for Summary Judgment, 232. Final judgment shall enter accordingly. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/17/2022. (JSR) |
| 1. | Four women who allege Indiana attorney general groped them file lawsuit (cnn.com) |
| Submitted Thu 06/20/2019 | |
| Docket last updated: 06/20/2019 12:32 PM EDT |
| Tuesday, June 18, 2019 | ||
| 1 | 1
COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by All Plaintiffs. (Filing fee $400, receipt number 0756-5484866)(Jeselskis, Kimberly)
|
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibit 1 - DaSilva Notice,
|
||
|
Att: 2
Exhibit 2 - Lozano Notice,
|
||
|
Att: 3
Exhibit 3 - McLemore Notice,
|
||
|
Att: 4
Civil Cover Sheet,
|
||
|
Att: 5
Proposed Summons
|
||
| 2 | 2
NOTICE of Appearance by Kimberly D. Jeselskis on behalf of Plaintiffs NIKI DASILVA, SAMANTHA LOZANO, GABRIELLE MCLEMORE, MARA REARDON. (Jeselskis, Kimberly)
|
|
| 3 | 3
NOTICE of Appearance by William J. Brinkerhoff on behalf of Plaintiffs NIKI DASILVA, SAMANTHA LOZANO, GABRIELLE MCLEMORE, MARA REARDON. (Brinkerhoff, William)
|
|
| 4 | 4
NOTICE of Appearance by Hannah Kaufman Joseph on behalf of Plaintiffs NIKI DASILVA, SAMANTHA LOZANO, GABRIELLE MCLEMORE, MARA REARDON. (Joseph, Hannah)
|
|
| 5 | 5
NOTICE of Appearance by Patricia Orloff Erdmann on behalf of Defendants CURTIS T. HILL, JR, STATE OF INDIANA. (Erdmann, Patricia)
|
|
| 6 | 6
NOTICE of Appearance by Jefferson S. Garn on behalf of Defendants CURTIS T. HILL, JR, STATE OF INDIANA. (Garn, Jefferson)
|
|
| 7 | 7
NOTICE of Appearance by Parvinder Kaur Nijjar on behalf of Defendants CURTIS T. HILL, JR, STATE OF INDIANA. (Nijjar, Parvinder)
|
|