Riggs v. DXP Enters., Inc.

Full title: NICOLE RIGGS v. DXP ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION

Date published: Jan 23, 2019

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:18-cv-00729 (W.D. La. Jan. 23, 2019)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:18-cv-00729

01-23-2019

NICOLE RIGGS v. DXP ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY

MAG. JUDGE PATRICK J. HANNA

JUDGMENT

This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Hanna for report and recommendation. After an independent review of the record, and noting the absence of any objections, this Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation is correct and adopts the findings and conclusions therein as its own. Accordingly, consistent with the report and recommendation,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the defendants' Rule 12(f) motions to strike [Doc. Nos. 35 and 36] are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. More particularly, the motions to strike are denied with regard to Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the plaintiffs' amended complaint but granted with regard to Paragraphs 32(C), 32(D), 32(G), 32(H), 32(I), and 32(J) as well as with regard to the words "conspiracy to defame." In other words, the words "conspiracy to defame" are stricken from the amended complaint, and Paragraphs 32(C), 32(D), 32(G), 32(H), 32(I), and 32(J) are also stricken from the amended complaint.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the defendants' motions for summary judgment [Doc. Nos. 35 and 36] are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. More particularly, the motions are granted with regard to (a) the plaintiff's invasion of privacy claim, (b) the plaintiff's sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims under state law, and (c) the plaintiff's retaliation claims under federal law except for her claim that she was terminated from her employment in violation of Title VII, and those claims are dismissed with prejudice, while the motions for summary judgment are denied with regard to any other claims asserted by the plaintiff, leaving only the plaintiff's Title VII claim for retaliatory termination of her employment against DXP, her state-law intentional infliction of emotional distress against DXP and Ms. Marks, and her defamation per se claim against DXP and Ms. Marks remaining to be resolved.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff's claims against Brian Ross are DISMISSED AS ABANDONED.

Monroe, Louisiana, this 23rd day of January, 2019.

/s/ _________

TERRY A. DOUGHTY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE