Logar v. West Virginia Univ. Bd. of Governors
| Decision Date | 25 January 2012 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 1:10CV201 (STAMP) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia |
| Parties | CYRIL M. LOGAR and R. STEPHEN SEARS, Plaintiffs, v. WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY BOARD OF GOVERNORS, including members from 2008 through the present, a West Virginia State Board; MARY ROBERTA BRANDT, individually and as former Vice President for Legal Affairs and General Counsel at West Virginia University and adjunct professor of law; BEVERLY D. KERR, individually and as Deputy General Counsel for West Virginia University; MARJORIE A. McDIARMID, individually and as the Steptoe and Johnson Professor of Law and Technology and Academic Integrity Officer for West Virginia University; MICHAEL S. GARRISON, individually and as former President of West Virginia University; C. PETER McGRATH, individually and as former interim President of West Virginia University; JAMES P. CLEMENTS, individually and as current President of West Virginia University; and E. JANE MARTIN, individually and as former Provost of West Virginia University, Defendants. |
The plaintiffs, Cyril M. Logar and R. Stephen Sears, filed a complaint against the defendants in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs stated that the defendants deprived them of their liberty and property rights without due process, knowingly and intentionally sabotaged their reputations, deprived them of certain benefits and privileges commensurate with theirpositions as administrators and tenured faculty members at West Virginia University ("WVU"), and failed to adhere to WVU's established procedures for conducting academic misconduct investigations. Thereafter, Marjorie A. McDiarmid filed a motion to dismiss, James P. Clements, C. Peter McGrath, and West Virginia University Board of Governors ("WVU BOG") filed a motion to dismiss, Mary Roberta Brandt and Beverly D. Kerr filed a motion to dismiss, and E. Jane Martin filed a motion to dismiss. On July 28, 2010, this Court entered an order notifying the parties of its intent of possible conversion of the motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment as to the issue of the statute of limitations and directed the parties to submit affidavits to this Court in which the parties should provide this Court with certain dates relevant to the statute of limitations applicable to the plaintiffs' claims. The parties complied with this request.
On September 15, 2011, this Court converted the defendants' motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment and granted each of the motions on the grounds that the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to civil rights actions based upon the two-year statute of limitations in tort actions in West Virginia. The same day, this Court entered judgment in this matter, dismissing the case with prejudice.
Following dismissal, the plaintiffs filed a joint motion separately requesting that this Court alter or amend its judgment for the defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure59(e), and that it grant leave to the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). In the motion, the plaintiffs argue that they should be given leave to amend their complaint to add contract-based and 42 U.S.C. § 1982 claims which they believe do not implicate the statute of limitations issues addressed in this Court's memorandum opinion and order dismissing the case. They further request that this Court reconsider its prior determination regarding the application of the statute of limitations to time-bar the claims in their original complaint, claiming that this Court's original opinion constituted plain error.
The defendants filed a joint memorandum in response in which it is argued that the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend should be denied on the bases of undue delay and prejudice to the defendants. Additionally, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend judgment should be denied because no new information has been introduced by the plaintiffs which justifies a request for reconsideration of this Court's original opinion, and that the plaintiffs are attempting to use this motion to raise arguments which could have been raised before the judgment in this case, which, they argue, is inappropriate. The plaintiffs timely replied to this response.
This motion is now fully briefed and ripe for review. For the reasons set forth below, the plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint is DENIED.
In October 2007, a local media outlet contacted West Virginia University ("WVU") inquiring about whether a particular student ("Student A") completed and earned an "eMBA" degree at WVU. The plaintiffs, then Dean and Associate Dean of the College of Business and Economics at WVU, conducted an investigation at the request of then Provost, Gerald Lang, and concluded that Student A had not completed the degree. On October 15, 2007, the plaintiffs attended a meeting allegedly called by defendant and then WVU President Michael Garrison. Then WVU General Counsel Alex Macia, Lang, and then director of the MBA program Paul Speaker were also allegedly at the meeting. The plaintiffs aver that General Counsel Macia advised them that Student A had earned the degree. Plaintiff Sears states that he was told to send a letter to the inquiring media outlet, stating that Student A had earned her degree.
The media outlet then made three Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests. In April 2008, a special investigative panel from the media outlet issued a report regarding their findings. On May 30, 2008, Garrison submitted a letter to defendant McDiarmid, Academic Integrity Officer for WVU, in which he requested an investigation of the potential academic misconduct committed by plaintiff Sears and/or any other person. Garrison then submittedhis resignation as president of WVU on June 6, 2008, effective August 31, 2008. The Office of General Counsel sent a memorandum to the plaintiffs on June 16, 2008, informing them that the Academic Integrity Committee had requested the cooperation of the General Counsel's office in the Student A investigation. The memorandum instructed the plaintiffs to make available any and all documents relevant to the investigation. The plaintiffs contend that this constituted specific legal advice and direction to the plaintiffs.
Defendant McDiarmid named several individuals to serve on the screening subcommittee, including defendant Kerr, then deputy general counsel at WVU. The screening subcommittee issued a report on July 17, 2008. McDiarmid mailed the plaintiffs this report via university mail on July 21, 2008. On August 1, 2008, counsel for Sears sent McDiarmid a letter seeking an extension of time to respond to the screening subcommittee report. On August 5, 2008, Logar sent McDiarmid a letter responding to the screening subcommittee report. The plaintiffs state that Macia and other persons acting in the General Counsel's office submitted documents for review by the screening subcommittee, which included Kerr, who was also employed in the General Counsel's office at the same time. The screening subcommittee report stated that no testimony or documentary evidence indicated that Macia or Garrison knew of or were involved with the generation of the records sent to admissions and records. The plaintiffs state that no reference was made bythe screening subcommittee to the alleged fact that Macia had given legal advice and actively participated in the October 15, 2007 meeting, or that he had participated in communications regarding the Student A matter before and after the meeting.
Defendant McDiarmid then named a discovery subcommittee hearing panel. In December 2008, defendant McDiarmid sent letters to the plaintiffs informing them that they were being charged with academic misconduct. The plaintiffs allege that Kerr attended the hearings of the discovery subcommittee and served as its legal counsel. The discovery subcommittee brought charges of academic misconduct against the plaintiffs on December 3, 2008. The subcommittee's report contained the affirmative statements that records were fabricated, grades falsified, and that the plaintiffs had failed to comply with institutional requirements related to teaching and learning.
On February 24, 2009, Lang, who was also charged with misconduct by the screening subcommittee, filed a petition for writ of prohibition with the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, which sought to terminate disciplinary proceedings due to conflict of interest. The plaintiffs in this action moved to intervene in these proceedings on April 20, 2009, and the petition was heard by the Susan B. Tucker, Monongalia County Circuit Court Judge, on April 22, 2009. Judge Tucker granted Mr. Lang a writ of prohibition, but denied the plaintiffs' motions to intervene, deeming those motions untimely because they were filed two daysbefore the hearing when the original petition had been pending for two months beforehand. However, Judge Tucker acknowledged that the plaintiffs were subject to the same misconduct proceedings, and that she was of the opinion that their rights were similarly infringed by, among other things, the WVU Office of General Counsel's conflict of interest, which caused her to grant Mr. Lang's writ. Judge Tucker terminated the academic integrity proceedings entirely.
Following Judge Tucker's order terminating the proceedings, the respondents in that case2 appealed, and Judge Tucker reaffirmed her opinion on January 24,2011. However, on July 15, 2011, her previous orders were vacated following a settlement agreement between Lang and the respondents in that case. At no time during the pendency, appeal, or ultimate dismissal...
To continue reading
Request your trial