Gurov-Pridyuk v. Strategic Materials, Inc. et al

MOTION to dismiss for failure to state a claim

M.D. Fla.July 18, 2016

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION ALENA GUROV-PRIDYUK, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:14-CV-2094-T-35JSS DISPOSITIVE MOTION STRATEGIC MATERIALS, INC., DENIS SUGGS, CURTIS BUCEY, DAVID MAJOR and GILBERT HUMPHREY, Defendants. _______________________________________/ DEFENDANT GILBERT HUMPHREY’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, GILBERT HUMPHREY (“Mr. Humphrey”), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4, 8, 10(b), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6), moves this Court for an order dismissing, with prejudice, Plaintiff ALENA GUROV-PRIDYK’s Amended Complaint as to Mr. Humphrey, and in support states as follows: MOTION TO DISMISS AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW A. Plaintiff Fails to State a Cognizable Claim Against Mr. Humphrey 1. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains two counts, based on the same underlying facts, alleging violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, more specifically, sex based employment discrimination against Plaintiff by all defendants. See Amended Complaint [Dkt. 28]. Mr. Humphrey, an individual and former employee of Plaintiff’s former employer, Defendant Strategic Materials, Inc., is not a proper party to either of Plaintiff’s two counts. Case 8:14-cv-02094-MSS-JSS Document 29 Filed 07/18/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID 89 2 2. As an initial matter, Mr. Humphrey adamantly denies any improper conduct with respect to Plaintiff, including all of the allegations of the Complaint alleging such conduct. Even if Plaintiff’s patently false accusations could be proven true, however, Mr. Humphrey cannot be held individually liable under Title VII. Following its prior reasoning and that of several other circuits, the Eleventh Circuit in Dearth v. Collins, 441 F.3d 931 (11th Cir. 2006), reiterated its longstanding position that “relief under Title VII is available against only the employer and not against individual employees whose actions would constitute a violation of the Act, regardless of whether the employer is a public company or a private company.” Id. at 933 (emphasis in original), citing Hinson v. Clinch County Bd. Of Educ., 231 F.3d 821, 827 (11th Cir. 2000) and Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764, 772 (11th Cir. 1991). B. Conclusion 3. Mr. Humphrey cannot be adjudged liable on the basis of either Count I or Count II of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and, as such, Mr. Humphrey is not a proper party to either count. Accordingly, both such counts should be dismissed against Mr. Humphrey, with prejudice. WHEREFORE, Defendant, GILBERT HUMPHREY, respectfully requests that this Court enter an order dismissing Counts I and II of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, with prejudice, to the extent they are alleged against Mr. Humphrey, an improper party to both counts. TILDEN & PROHIDNEY, P.L. /s/ Jesse M. Tilden Jesse M. Tilden FBN: 0550566 Primary Email: jesse@tildenprohidney.com Case 8:14-cv-02094-MSS-JSS Document 29 Filed 07/18/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID 90 3 Service Email: service@tildenprohidney.com 431 12th Street West, Ste. 204 Bradenton, FL 34205 Telephone: (941) 243- 3959 Facsimile: (800) 856-5332 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 18th day of July, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court using the CM/ECF system, which will send electronic notice of filing to counsel for all parties. The pro se Plaintiff was served with a true and correct copy of this motion by certified mail at the following address: Alena Gurov-Pridyuk, 515 Missouri Road, Venice, Florida 34293. /s/ Jesse M. Tilden Attorney Case 8:14-cv-02094-MSS-JSS Document 29 Filed 07/18/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID 91