1 11-4536-cv Omid Nodoushani v. Southern Connecticut State University



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## SUMMARY ORDER

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER**  **J ANUARY**  **1, 2007,**  **IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F**  **EDERAL R** **ULE OF A** **PPELLATE P**  **ROCEDURE 32.1**  **AND THIS COURT ’**  **S L**  **OCAL R** **ULE 32.1.1.**  **W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A**  **DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE**  **( WITH THE NOTATION**  **“ SUMMARY ORDER**  **”). A**  **PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL**  **. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 15 th** **day of January, two thousand thirteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **Chief Judge ,**  7 **JON O. NEWMAN,** 8 **REENA RAGGI,** 9 **Circuit Judges**

. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **OMID NODOUSHANI,** 13 14 **Plaintiff-Appellant ,**  15 16 **v. 11-4536-cv** 17 18 **SOUTHERN CONNECTICUT STATE** 19 **UNIVERSITY,** 20 21 **Defendant-Appellee**

**.** 22

**_____________________________________** 23 24 **FOR APPELLANT:** William S. Palmieri, 25 New Haven, Connecticut. 26 272 **FOR APPELLEE:** Maria C. Rodriguez, Assistant 1 Attorney General, 2 Hartford, Connecticut. 3 4 Appeal from an order of the United States District 5 Court for the District of Connecticut (Thompson, J. ). 6 7 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 8 **AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 9 **VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART**

. 10 11 Omid Nodoushani (“Nodoushani”) appeals from judgment 12 entered on September 30, 2011 in the United States District 13 Court for the District of Connecticut (Thompson, J. ) 14 granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant, Southern 15 Connecticut State University (“The University”), on 16 Nodoushani’s claims of: (1) employment discrimination and 17 retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 18 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”) and the 19 Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. 20 § 46a-60(a) et seq. (“CFEPA”); and (2) intentional 21 infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”)

. We assume the 22 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the 23 procedural history, and the issues presented for review. 24 25 We review de novo a district court’s decision to grant 26 summary judgment. Mario v. P&C Food Mkts., Inc. , 313 F.3d 27 758, 763 (2d Cir. 2002). 28 29 1. “The Judicial powerof the United States shall not 30 be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, 31 commenced or prosecuted against any one of the United States 32 by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of 33 any Foreign State.” U.S. Const. amend. XI (emphasis added). 34 “‘Jurisdiction properly refers to a court’s powerto hear a 35 case.’” Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick , 130 S. Ct. 1237, 36 1246 n.5 (2010) (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. 37 Cotton , 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002)). Given that explicit 38 limitation on judicial power, see Missouri v. Fisk , 290 U.S. 39 18, 25 (1933), the district court correctly ruled that 40 Nodoushani’s state claims are barred by the Eleventh 41 Amendment. However, those claims should have been dismissed 42 without prejudice in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) 43 because the district court lacked subject matter 44 jurisdiction. 45 463 2. The district court did not err in striking part of 1 Nodoushani’s Local Rule 56(a)(3) statement. District courts 2 have leeway on motions to strike in the context of summary 3 judgment motions. While a court is obliged not to consider 4 inadmissible evidence at the summary judgment stage, “[t]o 5 the extent that an affidavit or declaration contains 6 material that does not comply with [Federal Rule of Civil 7 Procedure] 56(e), the [c]ourt may strike those portions, or 8 may simply disregard them.” Rus, Inc. v. Bay Indus., Inc.
, 9 322 F. Supp. 2d 302, 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); see also United 10 States v. Alessi , 599 F.2d 513, 514-15 (2d Cir. 1979) 11 (holding that the district court may strike inadmissible 12 portions of affidavits). 13 14 3. We affirm the district court’s decision with regard 15 to Nodoushani’s Title VII claims for the reasons stated in 16 the district court’s thorough opinion. 17 18 Finding no merit in Nodoushani’s remaining arguments, 19 we hereby **AFFIRM** the judgment with respect to Nodoushani’s 20 Title VII claims and **VACATE** the judgment of the district 21 court as to the state claims and **REMAND**for the district 22 court to enter an order dismissing them for lack of federal 23 subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice to such 24 remedies as may be available in state court. 25 26 27 FOR THE COURT: 28 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 29 30