Opinion
CIVIL 1:23-CV-72-MPM-DAS
07-17-2023
DR. KAY MORGAN PLAINTIFF v. DR. MARTY BRAY AND MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY DEFENDANTS
ORDER
MICHAEL P. MILLS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The plaintiff Dr. Kay Morgan filed her Complaint for Employment Discrimination against Dr. Marty Bray and Mississippi State University on May 5, 2023. Docket 1. She asserts claims for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and alleges she suffered discriminated on her race, color, and sex. Id. In response to her Complaint, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) based, in part, on the plaintiff's failure to exhaust her administrative remedies under Title VII prior to filing suit. Docket 8. The plaintiff has responded to the motion to dismiss, and the defendants have submitted their reply. Docket 15, 16.
On July 6, 2023, the plaintiff filed a “Motion to Suspend the Case up to July 7th, 2023 Due to New Developments Supporting the Case.” Docket 18. It appears the plaintiff is asking the court to stay the case until July 7, 2023, in order to facilitate communications between the plaintiff and the Instructional Systems and Workforce Development Department at Mississippi State University related to Dr. Bray's employment. Id. However, the self-described “[s]tatements of facts and legal arguments” in the plaintiff's fifteen-page filing are substantially broader than a mere request to stay this case. Accordingly, the defendants moved to strike the portions of the plaintiff's motion which include “redundant arguments in opposition to MSU and Bray's motion to dismiss and new allegations that Morgan claims support her causes of action.” Docket 19.
The plaintiff's request to stay the case until July 7, 2023, is moot. To the extent the plaintiff intends her motion to suspend the case to serve as supplemental briefing on the motion to dismiss, the filing runs afoul of Local Uniform Civil Rule 7 and is stricken. Should the plaintiff wish to assert additional factual information and/or legal arguments in her response to the motion to dismiss, she must first obtain leave of court. The plaintiff's “Motion to Suspend the Case up to July 7th, 2023 Due to New Developments Supporting the Case” is denied as moot and the remainder of the motion is stricken from the record.