Motion,Ex Parte: PERRY, TROY vs. ALIEF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Filed
                                                                                                            07 November 2 P2:51
                                                                                                           Theresa Chang
                                                                                                            District Clerk
                                                                                                            Harris District



TROY PERRY,                                                              IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

                                                                         HARRIS COUNTY,               TEXAS

ALIEF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL                                 §
                                                                            215TH    JUDICIAL DISTRICT


                        TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY                          JUDGMENT

          Defendants Alief Independent School Dist

Turner (“Tuer”), and Henry Bonaparte (“Bonaparte”) (collectively “Defendants”) file

their Second Supplement to Motions for Summary Judgment as follows:


                                Introduction/Procedural Background

          Plaintiff Troy Perry, a former AISD Po

                                       Defendants based on the termination of his employment.

Specifically, Plaintiff asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all Defendants.

Plaintiff further asserts claims under Section 554.001 of the Texas Government Code

(“Texas     Whistleblower Act”          or “TWA”)            against AISD     and   claims    for slander and

                                                         against Turner and Bonaparte.             On March 6,

2007, Defendants filed their Partial Motion for Summary Judgment addressing all claims




  Plaintiff's Seventh Amended Petition omits his intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against Turner
and Bonaparte.
tion for Summary Judgment.”

        On receipt of Plaintiff’s Sixth Amended Petition, Defendan




previously filed dispositive motion.

        On June       1, 2007,     Plaintiff filed his Seventh Amended                  Petition.     Although



abundance      of caution,      file this second        supplement      to their motions         for summary

Defendants are entitled                                                               to summary judgment




        Plaintiff’s Seventh Amende                                              claims against Defendants

                                                                                                             with

Plaintiff's Sixth Ame




        Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff contends that his “claim under 42 U.S.C.

                                                                           ddressed beyond Defendants’


  Defendants’ No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment was filed as to all claims brought by Plaintiff.
  As noted supra, Defendants have fully briefed Plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress
against Tumer and Bonaparte. Plaintiff’s Seventh Amended Petition purportedly drops such claim.
exhaustion     argument,      Defendants      assert that

ation on the part of Defendants.




                                                             Defendants’ Partial Motion for Summary

                                                               ty Judgment Motion           as to Plaintiff's

                                                         Emotional Distress Claims and No Evidence

                                   ment, the Court should dismiss all of Plaintiff's federal and

                        ainst Defendants.

        WHEREFORE,             PREMISES         CONSIDERED,            De

                                   for Summary Judgment and Traditional Summary Judgment



on for Summary Judgment and

                                                themselves justly entitled.




 Defendants Turner and Bonaparte are also entitled to qualified immunity from such claim.    Defendants’ Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment at pp. 10-12.
FELDMAN & ROGERS, L.L.P.



                                                 J. ERIK NICHOLS
                                                  State Bar No. 00788119
                                                 KRISTI M. HERRING
                                                  State Bar No. 24036769
                                                  5718 Westheimer, Suite 1200
                                                 Houston, Texas 77057
                                                 Telephone: 713/960-6000
                                                 Facsimile: 713/960-6025



                            CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of November, 2007, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of Cour
system and served on all counsel of record a true and correct copy of the same
                                   il, certified, return receipt requested and addressed as




                         (Via Facsimile and Certified Mail RRR)




                                                 —--
                                                 Attorney for Defendants