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.

I. Shah, et al v. State of Wisconsin

September 16, 2011

I. SHAH, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
STATE OF WISCONSIN, ET AL., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Thompson, U.S.D.J.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court upon six pending motions to dismiss filed by the various defendants in this case: Those motions are:

(1) Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants State of New Jersey, Department of Law and Public Safety, and the Office of the Attorney General ("New Jersey State Defendants") [docket # 17];

(2) Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement, filed by Defendants Frank Olsen-Tank and Parsons Transportation Group [25];

(3) Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant State of Wisconsin [33];

(4) Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant the ARUP [39];

(5) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Defendants the United States Department of Justice, the United States of America, and the U.S. Attorney's Office ("United States Defendants") [54]; and

(6) Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement, filed by Defendant Tishman Construction Corporation [57].

The Plaintiffs have opposed the motion filed by Olsen-Tank and Parsons Transportation Group and have provided a "part response" to others. (Pls.' Resp. 1) [70]. The Court has decided the motions upon consideration of the parties' written submissions and upon sua sponte consideration of arguments in opposition to the motions. For the reasons stated below, the motions to dismiss filed by the New Jersey State Defendants, the State of Wisconsin, and the United States Defendants are granted, and the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Frank Olsen-Tank and Parsons Transportation Group, the ARUP, and Tishman Construction Corporation are granted in part and denied in part.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are a family of East Indian immigrants. (Am. Compl. at ¶ 3, 5) [2]. Plaintiff A. Shah, the father and husband of the other Plaintiffs, is a former employee of Defendant State of Wisconsin, Department of Transportation ("DOT") and of Defendant CM Consortium, which is allegedly a New Jersey joint venture of three business entities-Defendants Tishman Construction Corporation, The ARUP, and Parson Transportation Group. (Id. at ¶ 3.) This action arises from Plaintiff A. Shah's long-running problems with his former employers, which Plaintiffs characterize as discrimination and hate crimes. The Complaint asserts numerous claims against more than a dozen Defendants, including claims under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, the New Jersey Constitution, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, the Wisconsin Civil Rights laws, Wisconsin state laws against discrimination, the Wisconsin Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, § 1981, § 1985, and § 1986, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the United States Constitution, several Amendments to the United States Constitution, and various federal and state labor and discrimination laws. (Id. at ¶ 1.)

The Complaint is long and convoluted, but the following allegations can be drawn from it. These allegations are accepted as true for the purposes of deciding the pending motions to dismiss. See Fowler v. ...


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.