Lewis v. La. State Univ.
| Docket Number | Civil Action 21-198-SM-RLB |
| Decision Date | 16 June 2022 |
| Parties | SHARON LEWIS, Plaintiff v. LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, ET AL., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
1
SHARON LEWIS, Plaintiff
v.
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, ET AL., Defendants
Civil Action No. 21-198-SM-RLB
United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
June 16, 2022
ORDER AND REASONS
SUSIE MORGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On March 4, 2022, Plaintiff Sharon Lewis (Plaintiff) filed her Second Amended Complaint and first amended RICO Case Statement.[1] Plaintiff alleges, among other things, claims for relief arising out of alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).[2] Now pending before the Court are the following:
Motion to dismiss the civil RICO claims in the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, filed by Defendants Robert Barton, Vicki Crochet, and William Shelby McKenzie (the “TP Defendants”);[3]
Motion to dismiss the civil RICO claims in the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, filed by Defendant Verge Ausberry(“Ausberry”);[4]
Motion to dismiss the civil RICO claims in the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, filed by Defendant Miriam Segar (“Segar”);[5]
Motion to dismiss the civil RICO claims in the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, filed by Defendant Joseph Alleva (“Alleva”);[6] and
Motion to dismiss the civil RICO claims in the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, filed by Scott Woodward (“Woodward”).[7]
2
BACKGROUND
Because the background facts are extensively set forth in the Court's September 10, 2021 Order and Reasons, [8] and the Court's December 2, 2021 Order and Reasons, [9] the Court will set forth only the procedural developments that have occurred since the December 2, 2021 Order and Reasons was issued.
In its December 2, 2021 Order and Reasons, the Court, among other things, ordered that Plaintiff “may seek leave of Court on or before Friday, December 10, 2021, to file a Second Amended Complaint” to, inter alia, “amend her civil RICO claims against William Shelby McKenzie, Vicki Crochet, Robert Barton . . . Joseph Alleva, Miriam Segar, Verge Ausberry, and Scott Woodward, in their individual capacities.”[10] The Court further ordered that on or before Friday, December 10, 2021, Plaintiff may seek leave of Court to file her first amended RICO Case Statement into the record.[11] The Court's December 2, 2021 Order and Reasons further provided that “[i]f Plaintiff timely requests leave to file her Second Amended Complaint, the motions to dismiss filed by William Shelby McKenzie, Vicki Crochet, Robert Barton, James Williams, Mary Leach Werner, Miriam Segar, Verge Ausberry, and Scott Woodward, to the extent seeking dismissal of Plaintiff's civil RICO claims based on injuries discovered on or after April 8, 2017, will be denied as moot without prejudice.”[12]
On December 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file her Second Amended Complaint and first amended RICO Case Statement, attaching her proposed Second Amended Complaint and first amended RICO Case Statement to the motion for
3
leave.[13] The Court denied the motion because “[t]he proposed Second Amended Complaint fail[ed] to comply with the Court's December 2, 2021 Order and Reasons.”[14]The Court set a telephone status conference for Monday, December 20, 2021 to discuss Plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint.[15]
On December 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, ”[16]asking the Court to reconsider the portion of its December 2, 2021 Order and Reasons[17]that dismissed, with prejudice, Plaintiff's civil RICO claims against Leslie Miles (“Miles), Garrett Danos (“Danos”), Robert Yarborough (“Yarborough”), Stanley Jacobs (“Jacobs”) and William Jenkins (“Jenkins”). Oppositions to Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend were filed by Leslie Miles, [18] the TP Defendants, [19] Garrett “Hank” Danos, Stanley Jacobs, and Robert “Bobby” Yarborough, [20] Miriam Segar, [21] and William “Bill” Jenkins.[22] Plaintiff filed replies.[23] On January 19, 2022, the Court issued an Order and Reasons denying Plaintiff's “Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment.”[24] In the Court's January 19, 2022 Order and Reasons, the Court ordered that on or before Thursday, January 27, 2022, Plaintiff may seek leave to file a Second Amended Complaint and first amended RICO Case Statement.[25]
On January 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file her Second Amended
4
Complaint and first amended RICO Case Statement, attaching her proposed Second Amended Complaint and first amended RICO Case Statement to the motion for leave.[26]Oppositions to the motion for leave were filed by the TP Defendants, [27] the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, Mary Leach Werner, and James Williams, [28]Verge Ausberry, [29] Scott Woodward, [30] Joseph Alleva, [31] and Miriam Segar.[32] Plaintiff did not file replies.
On February 9, 2022, Plaintiff appealed the Court's January 19, 2022 Order and Reasons to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[33] The Fifth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff's appeal based on lack of jurisdiction, and the mandate issued on May 20, 2022.[34]
On February 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of her claims against Mary Leach Werner and James Williams.[35] On February 25, 2022, the Court granted the motion, thereby dismissing, with prejudice, Plaintiff's claims against Mary Leach Werner and James Williams.[36]
Also on February 25, 2022, the Court held a video status conference, and during the status conference, the parties discussed Plaintiff's January 26, 2022 motion for leave and whether Plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint and first amended RICO Case Statement complied with the Court's December 2, 2021 Order and Reasons.[37] During
5
the status conference, the Court denied Plaintiff's January 26, 2022 motion for leave, and in the Minute Entry following the status conference, the Court ordered that, on or before Friday March 4, 2022, Plaintiff shall file a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint and first amended RICO Case Statement to incorporate the corrections, clarifications, and additions discussed during the status conference.[38]
On March 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file her Second Amended Complaint and first amended RICO Case Statement, attaching her proposed Second Amended Complaint and first amended RICO Case Statement to the motion for leave.[39]On March 4, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for leave.[40] On that same date, Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and first amended RICO Case Statement were filed into the record.[41] The Court denied, without prejudice, the motions to dismiss Plaintiff's first amended complaint filed by William Shelby McKenzie, Vicki Crochet, Robert Barton, James Williams, Mary Leach Werner, Miriam Segar, Verge Ausberry, Scott Woodward, and Joseph Alleva.[42]
On March 4, 2022, the Court issued a briefing schedule providing that Defendants shall file any motions to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint on or before Friday, March 25, 2022, that Plaintiff's opposition to any motion shall be filed within 10 days of the filing of the motion, and that the mover may file a reply memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss within five days of the filing of Plaintiff's opposition.[43]
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint alleges, inter alia, a private cause of action
6
for damages under RICO against the TP Defendants, Verge Ausberry, Miriam Segar, Scott Woodward, and Joseph Alleva.[44] Specifically, Plaintiff alleges two types of RICO claims— namely, a substantive racketeering claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1962(c), [45] and a conspiracy-to-commit racketeering claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d).[46]
Plaintiff alleges Joseph Alleva, Scott Woodward, Miriam Segar, Verge Ausberry, Shelby McKenzie, Vicki Crochet, and Bob Barton constitute a RICO enterprise.[47] Plaintiff alleges the individual defendants engaged in conduct in violation of the following laws:
a. 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud)
b. 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud)
c. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (concealing documents or obstructing official proceedings)
d. 18 U.S.C. § 1513 (retaliation against a witness victim, or an informant); and
e. 18 U.S.C. § 1952 (interstate travel in aid of racketeering).[48]
Plaintiff alleges the enterprise, existing from 2013 to 2021, “utilized the above predicate acts to control the LSU football program, retaliate against employees and students who reported Title IX and criminal complaints against coaches and star football players and capture and kill Title IX complaints against coaches, star football players and athletic officials.”[49]
On March 25, 2022, motions to dismiss the civil RICO claims in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) were filed by the TP
7
Defendants, [50] Verge Ausberry, [51] Miriam Segar, [52] Joseph Alleva, [53] and Scott Woodward.[54]
RULE 12(b)(6) STANDARD
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court may dismiss a complaint, or any part of it, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if the plaintiff has not set forth factual allegations in support of her claim that would entitle her to relief.[55] “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”[56]“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”[57] The court, however, does not accept as true legal conclusions or mere conclusory statements, and “conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.”[58] “[T]hreadbare recitals of elements...
To continue reading
Request your trial