Summary
This is a federal district court order ruling on a motion to dismiss a pro se plaintiff's second amended complaint. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the plaintiff's federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on qualified immunity, while declining supplemental jurisdiction over his state law tort claims. The opinion extensively analyzes the scope of discretionary authority and the clearly established prong of qualified immunity for university officials accused of patent fraud and lease termination.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the §1983 claims (Counts I‑V).
- Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state‑law claims (Counts VI‑VII) after dismissing all federal claims.
Holdings
- Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; Counts I‑V are dismissed with prejudice.
- The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses Counts VI‑VII without prejudice.
Key quotations
“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” (at *)
Factual background
Dennis G. Deppe, a scientist and entrepreneur, developed an oxide VCSEL and later an oxide‑free VCSEL through his company sdPhotonics. While leasing laboratory space from the University of Central Florida (UCF), he alleged that UCF officials, including Deputy General Counsel Sandra M. Sovinski and Director of the Office of Technology Transfer Svetlana S. Shtrom, filed false patent documents with the USPTO and attempted to evict his company. Deppe claims retaliation, due‑process violations, a takings claim, and state‑law tort claims.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed an original complaint on August 2, 2023 which was dismissed without prejudice as a shotgun pleading. He then filed a second amended complaint on July 1, 2024 asserting seven counts, including five §1983 claims and two Florida tort claims. Defendants moved to dismiss; the court considered the motion and issued this order.