MOELLER et al v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY
Plaintiff: MATTHEW C MOELLER
Defendant: CHARLES BANTZ, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY, KIM D KIRKLAND, MICHAEL A McROBBIE, NASSER H PAYDAR and JOHN N WILLIAMS
Case Number: 1:2016cv00446
Filed: February 25, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge: Denise K. LaRue
Presiding Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
December 27, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 93 ORDER - Plaintiff Dr. Matthew Moeller worked at Indiana University in the School of Dentistry (the "University") as a Clinical Assistant Professor of Operative Dentistry - a non-tenure track position. In October 2014, the University becam e aware of allegations of sexual harassment made by students against Dr. Moeller. University representatives interviewed numerous students and informed Dr. Moeller that there were complaints that he had patted, rubbed, and massaged the backs of f emale students without their permission, and touched and rubbed the upper leg of a female student. Dr. Moeller admitted these allegations, but disputed their context and significance. After an investigation, which afforded Dr. Moeller the opportun ity to present his version of events, the University terminated Dr. Moeller's employment. Dr. Moeller filed complaints and appeals with various University entities, one of which recommended that the University should provide Dr. Moeller with more information regarding the allegations, interview him again, and provide him with the reasons the University concluded that he should be terminated. The University adopted these recommendations and offered Dr. Moeller the additional information and another interview on the condition that he waive his right to appeal the decision, but Dr. Moeller declined the offer. He then initiated this litigation, asserting, among other claims, violation of his right to procedural due process. Defendan ts have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 68 ], and Dr. Moeller has moved to dismiss two of his claims, [Filing No. 80 ]. Both motions are now ripe for the Court's decision. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Dr. Moeller's breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim is GRANTED. The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Counts Two and Five, 84 , and DE NIES Dr. Moeller's Motion to Dismiss Counts Two and Five Without Prejudice, 80 . The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 68 ], on all of Dr. Moeller's claims. Final judgment shall enter accordingly. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 12/27/2017. (RSF)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: MOELLER et al v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: CHARLES BANTZ
Represented By: Michele Lee Richey
Represented By: Michael C. Terrell
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY
Represented By: Michele Lee Richey
Represented By: Michael C. Terrell
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: KIM D KIRKLAND
Represented By: Michele Lee Richey
Represented By: Michael C. Terrell
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: MICHAEL A McROBBIE
Represented By: Michele Lee Richey
Represented By: Michael C. Terrell
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: NASSER H PAYDAR
Represented By: Michele Lee Richey
Represented By: Michael C. Terrell
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: JOHN N WILLIAMS
Represented By: Michele Lee Richey
Represented By: Michael C. Terrell
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: MATTHEW C MOELLER
Represented By: John S. Mercer
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?