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.

Sarhan v. Board of Trustees of Miami-Dade College

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

December 22, 2017

ROBERT JOSEPH SARHAN, M.D., Plaintiff,
v.
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MIAMI-DADE COLLEGE, Defendant.

          ORDER

          DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's “Third” Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike [ECF No. 64]. The Court has reviewed the Motion, the record, and the applicable law. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED in part.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Robert Joseph Sarhan (“Plaintiff”) is a physician who worked as an adjunct professor at Miami-Dade College. Plaintiff contends that The Board of Trustees of Miami-Dade College (“Defendant”) discriminated against him on the basis of race and national origin when it denied him a full-time teaching position in Defendant's Physician Assistant Program. Plaintiff also contends that Defendant retaliated against him after he filed a charge with the EEOC.

         Initial Complaint

         On March 16, 2016, Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed a Complaint against Miami-Dade College. [ECF No. 1]. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff: (1) named the wrong party as The Board of Trustees of Miami-Dade College was the proper defendant; (2) failed to properly serve Defendant; (3) failed to state a claim; and (4) improperly requested punitive damages. [ECF No. 10].

         Amended Complaint (Second Attempt)

         On May 31, 2016, before the Court ruled on Defendant's fully briefed motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, now naming Defendant as the proper party. [ECF No. 14]. Defendant moved to dismiss, again arguing improper service and failure to state a claim. On October 21, 2016, the Court granted Defendant's motion, finding that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was a shot gun pleading because each count improperly adopted the allegations of all preceding counts. [ECF No. 33]. The Court directed Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint on or before November 4, 2016, and instructed Plaintiff that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the action. Plaintiff failed to timely file a Second Amended Complaint and, on November 7, 2016, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice.

         Second Amended Complaint (Third Attempt)

         On November 15, 2016, Plaintiff moved to reopen the action, arguing that he did not receive the Order dismissing his Amended Complaint.[1] [ECF No. 39]. The Court permitted Plaintiff to amend his claims and, on December 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 46]. On January 4, 2017, Defendant moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, again arguing improper service and failure to state a claim. [ECF No. 47]. Rather than respond to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint without requesting leave of Court. [ECF No. 49]. Plaintiff then filed a belated request for leave to file his Third Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 52].

         Third Amended Complaint (Fourth Attempt)[2]

On September 22, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to file a Third Amended Complaint and designated ECF No. 49 to be the operative complaint. On October 11, 2017, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 64].[3]

         ANALYSIS

         I. PRO ...


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.