Quarrie v. Wells
| Decision Date | 23 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 17-350 MV/GBW |
| Parties | LINDSAY O'BRIEN QUARRIE, Plaintiff, v. STEPHEN WELLS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. 410. Having reviewed the Motion and its attendant briefing (docs. 419, 434), I find that Plaintiff has failed to rebut Defendants' reliance on the parties' settlement agreement as a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for rejecting Plaintiff's application for readmission. I therefore recommend that the Court GRANT Defendants' Motion and DISMISS Plaintiff's claims WITH PREJUDICE. I further recommend that the Court DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Submit a Surreply (doc. 440) because it does not relate to any issue that is material to the resolution of Defendants' Motion.
Plaintiff filed the present suit on March 20, 2017. Doc. 1. On August 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint, the operative complaint in this matter. Doc. 150. Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint presents two claims: (1) racial discrimination by Defendant New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology ("NMT") in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.; and (2) an injunction against Defendants Stephen Wells and Aly El-Osery, in their official capacities as NMT's President and Dean of Graduate Studies, respectively, pursuant to Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). Id. at ¶¶ 82-100; see also doc. 196 at 2. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants committed racial discrimination by rejecting his 2016 application for readmission to NMT's PhD program in materials engineering. See generally doc. 150.
Relevant to Plaintiff's claims, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release ("Settlement Agreement") in 2015 to resolve a prior lawsuit filed by Plaintiff against Defendant NMT arising from his 2012 termination from the PhD program. Doc. 410-3. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff agreed not to submit any future applications for admission to NMT. Id. at 2.
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint presents a variety of theories for why the Settlement Agreement is "void, invalid, and unenforceable" and thus does not provide a basis for Defendants to reject his application for readmission. See, e.g., doc. 150 at ¶ 55. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant NMT "fraudulently induced Plaintiff to sign the Settlement Agreement, which was void ab initio due to its violation of public policy by racially discriminating against Plaintiff in the context of higher education." Id. at ¶ 85.Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant NMT took advantage of Plaintiff's "extremely precarious economic situation" caused by his lack of a doctoral degree and engaged in "bait-and-switch" tactics by offering him a higher settlement at the outset of negotiations than he ultimately received. Id. at ¶¶ 47-48. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant NMT "violated the letter and spirit" of the Settlement Agreement "by adding the defamatory language 'No Degree Earned' to Plaintiff's NMT academic transcript." Id. at ¶ 51. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant NMT failed to fulfill a "condition precedent" of the Settlement Agreement by failing to remove "any and all similar language to 'Terminated from Graduate Program' from any related documents in Plaintiff's academic and administrative files at NMT." Id. at ¶ 55.
Defendants filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on November 16, 2020. Doc. 410. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition on December 18, 2020. Doc. 419. Defendants filed a reply on January 15, 2021. Doc. 434. Asserting that Defendants' reply raised new factual and legal arguments, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a surreply on January 29, 2021. Doc. 440. A proposed surreply was attached to this motion. Id. at 7-25. Defendants filed a response in opposition on February 12, 2021, to which Plaintiff replied on February 26, 2021. Doc. 442; doc. 443.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), a court must "grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material factand the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The movant bears the initial burden of "show[ing] 'that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.'" Bacchus Indus., Inc. v. Arvin Indus., Inc., 939 F.2d 887, 891 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986)). Once the movant meets this burden, the non-moving party is required to designate specific facts showing that "there are . . . genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986); see also Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324.
Based on the facts presented by the movants and other facts gleaned from the record, I find the following material facts undisputed:
1. From 2009 to 2012, Plaintiff, an African American man, was a student pursuing a PhD in materials engineering at NMT. Doc. 150 at ¶¶ 3, 12; doc. 151 at ¶¶ 3, 12.
2. On April 27, 2012, Plaintiff received a letter from then-Dean of Graduate Studies, Lorie Liebrock, informing him that he was terminated from his PhD program. Doc. 419-5.
3. On April 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant NMT, alleging that his termination constituted racial discrimination in violation of Title VI of the CivilRights Act. Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 at 1, Quarrie v. N.M. Inst. of Mining & Tech., Civ. No. 13-349 MV/SMV (D.N.M. Apr. 12, 2013).
4. On October 8, 2015, Plaintiff and Defendant NMT executed the Settlement Agreement. Doc. 410-3. In pertinent part, Plaintiff agreed to cease pursuing the claims raised in his 2013 lawsuit in exchange for $6,000. Id. at 1-2.
5. The Settlement Agreement contained the following provision: "No Future Application: Plaintiff agrees that he will not re-apply for enrollment at [NMT] now or in the future." Id. at 2.
6. The Settlement Agreement also contained the following provision:
7. On October 12, 2015, Plaintiff reviewed his transcript and saw that the phrase "No Degree Earned" had been added. Doc. 419-2. Plaintiff informed Defendant NMT's counsel that he believed this phrase was in violation of the Settlement Agreement. Doc. 419-8; doc. 419-10.
8. On October 21, 2015, Defendant NMT's counsel sent Plaintiff a letter detailing its position that the addition of the phrase "No Degree Earned" does not violate the Settlement Agreement. Doc. 419-12.
9. On October 22, 2015, Plaintiff responded to Defendant NMT detailing his position that it had breached the Settlement Agreement and demanded that Defendant NMT remove the offending language. Doc. 419-26.
10. On November 6, 2015, Plaintiff noted that Defendant NMT had not complied with his demand and stated that the Settlement Agreement was "now officially null and void." Doc. 419-27.
11. On June 30, 2016, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant NMT's counsel and then-President of NMT, Daniel Lopez, informing him that he had discovered copies of the termination letter from Dr. Liebrock in his academic and administrative files at NMT. Doc. 419-28. Plaintiff asserted that this constituted a violation of the provision of the Settlement Agreement requiring the removal of the language "Terminated from the Graduate Program" and thus provided an additional reason why the Settlement Agreement was null and void. Id.
12. On July 5, 2016, Defendant NMT's counsel responded to Plaintiff's letter, informing him that he disagreed with Plaintiff's position and that NMT "consider[s] the Settlement Agreement to be fully enforceable and valid." Doc. 419-29.
13. On August 22, 2016, New Mexico State Representative Sheryl Stapleton sent Defendants a letter informing them that she considered the Settlement Agreement null and void for the reasons Plaintiff provided in his June 30 letter. Doc. 419-30 at 4. Representative Stapleton further informed Defendants that Plaintiff had promised to return the $6,000 he had received pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Id.
14. Also on August 22, 2016, Plaintiff sent Defendants a letter stating that he would return the $6,000 "upon [his] official reinstatement in the PhD program in Materials Engineering at NMT and the award of [his] earned doctorate degree." Id. at 6.
15. On September 13, 2016, Defendant Wells, the current President of NMT, sent a response to Representative Stapleton informing her of NMT's position that the Settlement Agreement "finalized interactions with [Plaintiff] and, thereby, put an end to this matter." Doc. 419-32.
16. On October 10, 2016, Plaintiff sent checks for $100.00 each to Defendant NMT and the State of New Mexico's Risk Management Division in partial repayment of the $6,000 he received pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Doc. 419-33.
17. On December 2, 2016, Plaintiff applied for readmission to the materials engineering PhD program. Doc. 150 at ¶ 74; doc. 151 at ¶ 74.18. Defendant NMT states that it "took no action whatsoever" on Plaintiff's application, viewing it as a violation of the Settlement Agreement. Doc. 410-2 at 4.
19. On January...
To continue reading
Request your trial