Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Heyman v. State ex rel. Board of Regents For Nevada System of Higher Education

United States District Court, D. Nevada

October 19, 2017

DARREN HEYMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
THE STATE OF NEVADA EX REL. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION ON BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS; NEAL SMATRESK; DONALD SNYDER; STOWE SHOEMAKER; RHONDA MONTGOMERY; CURTIS LOVE; SARAH TANFORD; PHILLIP BURNS; KRISTIN MALEK; LISA MOLL-CAIN; DEBRA PIERUSCHKA; ELSA SIDHU AND DOES I -X INCLUSIVE,, Defendants.

          ORDER DEFENDANT SMATRESK'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS

          RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Before the Court are two Motions to Dismiss. The first was filed by Defendant Neal Smatresk (“Smatresk”) (ECF No. 45), and the second was jointly filed by all Defendants in the case (ECF No. 47). After reviewing the parties' submissions, for the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS both Motions to Dismiss.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Darren Heyman (“Plaintiff”) filed his original Complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County on May 11, 2015, and filed an Amended Complaint in the same court on June 10, 2015. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff's Amended Complaint listed fifteen causes of action, including fourteen state law claims and one Title IX claim. The Defendants named in the state court action were the State of Nevada ex rel. Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education on behalf of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (“UNLV”), Neal Smatresk (“Smatresk”), Donald Snyder (“Snyder”), Stowe Shoemaker (“Shoemaker”), Rhonda Montgomery (“Montgomery”), Curtis Love (“Love”), Sarah Tanford (“Tanford”), Phillip Burns (“Burns”), Kristen Malek (“Malek”), and Lisa Moll-Cain (“Moll-Cain”) (collectively, “Removing Defendants”). On June 29, 2015, the Removing Defendants removed the case to this Court, arguing that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint added a federal law claim. (ECF No. 1). Removing Defendants filed a First Motion to Dismiss on July 13, 2015. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff filed a First Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint on August 10, 2015. (ECF No. 18). Removing Defendants filed a Response on August 18, 2015. (ECF No. 20). Plaintiff filed a Response to the First Motion to Dismiss on August 24, 2015. (ECF No. 21). The next day, Plaintiff filed a Reply to the Response to the First Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 22). Removing Defendants filed a Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the First Motion to Dismiss on September 3, 2015. (ECF No. 24). On March 31, 2016, the Court entered a Minute Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, and denying Removing Defendants' Motion to Dismiss without prejudice.

         Plaintiff filed the operative Amended Complaint on April 13, 2016. (ECF No. 28).[1] In addition to the fifteen causes of action alleged in the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff pleads sixteen other causes of action in the SAC. The SAC also added two new defendants, Debra Pieruschka (“Pieruschka”) and Elda Sidhu (“Sidhu”). Defendant Smatresk filed a Motion to Dismiss on May 13, 2016. (ECF No. 45). All Defendants, including Pieruschka and Sidhu, also filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss on May 13, 2016. (ECF No. 47). On May 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed Responses to the Motions to Dismiss. (ECF Nos. 99, 100). On June 9, 2016, Defendants filed Replies to the Responses. (ECF Nos. 109, 110). The causes of action Plaintiff alleges are:

• 1) Defamation, against UNLV, Montgomery, Love, Tanford, Burns, Malek, and Moll-Cain;
• 2) Invasion of Privacy - False Light, against UNLV, Montgomery, Love, Tanford, Malek, and Moll-Cain;
• 3) Civil Conspiracy, against UNLV, Montgomery, Love, Tanford, Burns, Malek, and Moll-Cain;
• 4) Concerts of action, against UNLV, Montgomery, Love, Tanford, Burns, Malek, and Moll-Cain;
• 5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, against UNLV, Montgomery, Love, Tanford, Burns, Malek, and Moll-Cain;
• 6) Breach of Contract, against UNLV, Smatresk, Snyder, Montgomery, Love, Tanford, Burns, Malek, and Moll-Cain;
• 7) Contractual Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, against UNLV, Smatresk, Snyder, Shoemaker, Montgomery, Love, Tanford, Burns, Malek, and Moll-Cain;
• 8) Tortious Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, against UNLV, Smatresk, Snyder, Shoemaker, Montgomery, Love, Tanford, and Burns;
• 9) Constructive Fraud, against UNLV, Montgomery, Love, Tanford, Burns, Malek, and Moll-Cain;
• 10) Deceit or Misrepresentation, against UNLV, Snyder, Burns, and Shoemaker;
• 11) Detrimental Reliance, against UNLV, Snyder, Shoemaker, and Burns;
• 12) Fraud in the Inducement, against UNLV, Smatresk, Snyder, Shoemaker, and Burns;
• 13) Fraud / Intentional Misrepresentation, against UNLV, Montgomery, Love, Tanford, Burns, Malek, and Moll-Cain;
• 14) Sexual Harassment in violation of Nevada Fair Employment Practices Act, against UNLV, Montgomery, Love, Tanford, Burns, Malek, and Moll-Cain;
• 15) Sexual Harassment in violation of Title IX, against UNLV;
• 16) Negligence, against UNLV, Smetrask, Snyder, Shoemaker, Montgomery, Love, Tanford, Burns, Malek, and Moll-Cain;
• 17) Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision, and Retention, against UNLV, Smatresk, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.