Tony Shipp Lawsuit

Case 4:11-cv-01951 Document 1

Filed in TXSD on 05/23/11 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION GARRY S. GRAYBILL and JASMYNE GRAYBILL , Plaintiffs, v.

SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant.

§ § § § § § § § § § §

11-cv-1951 CIVIL ACTION NO. ___________

JURY DEMANDED

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

COME NOW, Garry S. Graybill and Jasmyne Graybill (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and through counsel, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq.), and bring this action against Sam Houston State University (“Defendant”) for violations of this statute, as well as violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for breach of contract/quantum meruit claims. In support, the Plaintiffs’ would show as follows: I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1.

This action arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

§§ 2000e et. seq. as well as the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq.

2.

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1337.

3.

This action properly lies in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because the unlawful employment practices alleged below were committed in this judicial district.

Graybill, et al. v. Sam Houston State University / Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint

1

Case 4:11-cv-01951 Document 1

4.

Filed in TXSD on 05/23/11 Page 2 of 12

Considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the litigants warrant

exercise of this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. Plaintiffs’ state claims are so related to Plaintiffs’ federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy.

5.

Charges against Defendant alleging retaliation and hostile work environment were timely

filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and this action was filed within ninety (90) days of Plaintiffs receiving their notices of a right-to-sue from the U.S. Department of Justice. Plaintiffs’ notices of a right-to-sue are attached as Exhibit A. II. PARTIES 6.

Plaintiff Garry S. Graybill is a citizen of the United States and resides at 8503 Chicksaw

Bluff, Converse, Texas.

7.

Plaintiff Jasmyne Graybill is a citizen of the United States and resides at 8503 Chicksaw

Bluff, Converse, Texas. Garry Graybill and Jasmyne Graybill are married to each other.

8.

Plaintiffs were at all relevant times each an “employee” of Defendant as defined by 42

U.S.C. § 2000(e)(f).

9.

Defendant was at all relevant times an “employer” as defined at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

State and local governments became covered entities for purposes of Title VII through the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. Defendant is also a covered entity for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 10.

Defendant may be served with process through service on its president, Dana Gibson,

Ph.D, Sam Houston State University, 1806 Avenue J, Bobby K. Marks Administration Building, Room 303, Huntsville, Texas 77340.

Graybill, et al. v. Sam Houston State University / Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint

2

Case 4:11-cv-01951 Document 1

Filed in TXSD on 05/23/11 Page 3 of 12

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS 11.

The Graybills are contemporary artists. They began their employment with SHSU on or

around September 1, 2008. Their primary function for the University was to strategically design and team-teach the new Workshop in Art Studio & History (WASH) program for Defendant’s Art Department.

12.

The Graybills were both initially hired as non-tenured faculty on a 1-year contract basis.

13.

Throughout their tenure, the Graybills were both regarded well through their evaluations

and were never subjected to any disciplinary action by SHSU until after they made the complaints described within this action. Their job performance was never made an issue by the supervisory personnel as SHSU. 14.

The couple were interviewed and hired by Tony Shipp, who was the Chair of the Art

Department.

15.

From early in their employment until at or around the time they chose to leave their

position, Shipp engaged in sexual harassment of the Graybills, both to Jasmyne individually and to the couple jointly. Shipp created an unlawful hostile work environment.

16.

Prior to their contract start date, Shipp required the Graybills to perform unpaid manual

labor when the Graybills essentially renovated the inside of a building to prepare it for the WASH program. For approximately seven weeks, the Graybills were obligated by Shipp to work 50-70 hours per week preparing this building for student use. The Graybills’ manual labor, which ranged from designing the layout to working with vendors to cleaning toilets, turned an unusable building into a valuable teaching space for Defendant.

Graybill, et al. v. Sam Houston State University / Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint

3

Case 4:11-cv-01951 Document 1

17.

Filed in TXSD on 05/23/11 Page 4 of 12

From the outset of employment Shipp made it clear that he controlled the money in the

Department, including merit raises. As he put it, the Graybills only had to make him happy.

18.

On dozens of occasions, Shipp invited the Graybills out “drinking” or to his home, and

each time the Graybills declined. During the first semester, Shipp would make these invitations multiple times per week to the point that the Graybills began avoiding the Art Office. When they did so, Shipp would then continue to make such invitations via text messages, phone calls or unannounced visits to their off-campus offices during evenings and weekends.

19.

Shipp made it clear that accepting these personal invitations was a condition of

employment. He told the couple that he could only be “plied” with beer and food. He also told the Graybills that they better not let family get in the way of doing their jobs and told them more than once that they were lucky to have jobs.

20.

Shipp would invite them to his house for situations in which the three of them would be

together with no other faculty. Shipp would make sexist comments, such as stating that Garry Graybill was “tied to [Jasmyne’s] apron strings”. Shipp would also ask about Jasmyne having children while simultaneously commenting on how children get in the way of professional duties. On another occasion, Shipp looked at the couple and told someone on the phone that he thought they were “pretty damn good-looking” as he leered at Jasmyne. Shipp would also use disrespectful and denigrating terms when talking about females.

21.

In the Spring of 2009, the Graybills met with Shipp in his office. Without provocation by

the Graybills, Shipp began talking about the Kinsey Institute and the studies done by the researcher on “swinging”, otherwise known as “partner-swapping”. He asked the Graybills if they thought it was interesting. Shipp initiated this one-sided conversation with the Graybills about the partner-swapping studies even though it had no relevance to the discussion for which

Graybill, et al. v. Sam Houston State University / Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint

4

Case 4:11-cv-01951 Document 1

Filed in TXSD on 05/23/11 Page 5 of 12

they were there. These types of comments and incidents led the Graybills to believe that Shipp may have had sexual intentions as well with the dozens of personal invitations that he had made to the Graybills over their tenure.

22.

Also in the Spring of 2009, the Graybills became aware that another art professor,

Summer Zickafoose, had filed a grievance against Tony Shipp, alleging harassment.

23.

In May 2009, the Graybills and the other professors in the Art Department were required

to attend a meeting at which they were to vote on whether or not to retain Shipp as Chair of the Department. During the meeting, the Graybills voiced their concerns about Shipp’s behavior toward them, including concerns about his inappropriate conduct and personal invitations, as well as harassing and discriminatory behavior toward them and other employees. In fact, many faculty members raised concerns about harassing and discriminatory behavior by Shipp. Ten of the 16 faculty members, including the Graybills, voted not to retain Shipp as Chair.

24.

Despite the vote by the faculty, the Dean of Arts & Sciences, Jaime Hebert, decided to

retain Shipp as Chair of the Art Department. Hebert did so after having spoken with tenured art department faculty about Shipp and their concerns.

Hebert gave no consideration to the

individual concerns of non-tenured faculty such as the Graybills.

25.

The Graybills were retained by SHSU for an additional one-year contract for the 2009-

2010 school year without having to reapply for their positions.

26.

The Graybills returned from summer break in early August 2009 only to find that Shipp

was retained as Chair of the Department. They were immediately concerned about retaliation by Shipp. On or around August 3, 2009, the Graybills jointly met with Dean Hebert to voice their concerns.

Dean Hebert related that Shipp was well aware of the couple’s “confidential”

complaints about his misconduct and their vote against him and was infuriated by them. Dean

Graybill, et al. v. Sam Houston State University / Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint

5

Case 4:11-cv-01951 Document 1

Filed in TXSD on 05/23/11 Page 6 of 12

Hebert admitted that Shipp was a problem and told the Graybills that they deserved a better work situation. Nevertheless, he told them to try to work out their differences with Shipp in a face-toface meeting.

27.

On or around August 14, 2009, the Graybills did as they were told by Dean Hebert and

met with Shipp in person in Shipp’s office. Shipp was livid. He began verbally assaulting the Graybills for voting against him and told the couple that they had made a big mistake. He also accused them of drafting Zickefoose’s formal grievance and sexual harassment complaint. The intensity of Shipp’s anger was such that Garry Graybill was concerned that the discussion might turn into a physical confrontation.

28.

Soon thereafter, the Graybills learned that their 2009-2010 contracts did not contain the

merit raise that Shipp had promised them before the summer break.

29.

On or about the following week, the Graybills returned to speak to Dean Hebert. The

couple told him about Shipp’s behavior in the meeting. Dean Hebert told them that Shipp was the problem but that he was remaining as Chair. Dean Hebert confided that if he removed Shipp as Chair, then Hebert would have to perform his duties, and that was not going to happen. Dean Hebert also told them that they had done an excellent job and begged them not to quit.

30.

On or around September 18, 2009, Shipp informed the Graybills that their job had been

posted for the 2010-2011 school year, meaning that the couple would have to reapply for their jobs and compete with applicants nationwide. Shipp stated he did so because they were not happy with their jobs, and if they were happy, they could reapply. Nothing performance-related was cited. Shipp then extended another personal invitation to come to a party at his house, an invitation that he had already made the previous week. For the remainder of the semester, the

Graybill, et al. v. Sam Houston State University / Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint

6

Case 4:11-cv-01951 Document 1

Filed in TXSD on 05/23/11 Page 7 of 12

Graybills made it their goal to focus on their teaching, avoid Shipp and save money to move on after the end of the Fall Semester.

31.

On or around December 18, 2009, the Graybills delivered their joint resignation letter to

the Director of Human Resources, the Vice-President and the President of the University. In their letter and exit interviews, the Graybills complained about Shipp and the harassment to which they were subjected. The Graybills never heard a response from the University.

IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – VIOLATION OF TITLE VII, CIVL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 - DISCRIMINATION 32.

The acts described in the preceding paragraphs violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, which makes it unlawful for an employer to hire or discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual, with respect to his or her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of an individual’s sex.

Defendant engaged in sex discrimination, created a hostile working environment based on sex and has done so with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiffs, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to punitive damages. Plaintiffs claim economic damages, including back and the equitable relief of front pay. Plaintiffs further claim damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life.

V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF 42 USC § 2000e-3 – RETALIATION 33.

The acts described in the preceding paragraphs violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3, which, in relevant part, makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any of its employees because he or she has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by § 2000e, or made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under § 2000e. Specifically, Defendant

Graybill, et al. v. Sam Houston State University / Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint

7

Case 4:11-cv-01951 Document 1

Filed in TXSD on 05/23/11 Page 8 of 12

retaliated against Plaintiffs for making complaints about Shipp’s violations of their federally protected rights under this statute and voting to remove him from his position. Defendant retaliated by declining a promised merit raise and reposting Plaintiffs’ jobs for the following contract year. Plaintiffs claim economic damages, including back and the equitable relief of front pay. Defendant has engaged in intentional retaliation and has done so with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiffs, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to punitive damages. Plaintiffs further claim damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life.

VI. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF CONTRACT/QUANTUM MERUIT 34.

As described above, Plaintiffs were required to perform seven weeks of manual labor for

Defendant without pay. In so doing, Plaintiffs provided Defendant with a valuable service and created a valuable teaching space for Defendant through their labor. Defendant breached an implied employment agreement with Plaintiffs and/or knowingly accepted Plaintiffs’ labor without compensating Plaintiffs for the value of their labor. Plaintiffs seek to be compensated for such labor. In the event of a presentation of claim under Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code Chapter 38, Plaintiffs will be entitled to their attorney fees.

VII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT 35.

As described above, the acts of Defendant in failing to compensate Plaintiffs for

approximately seven weeks of labor prior to the beginning of their paid employments violate the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which prohibits the denial of overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek.

Graybill, et al. v. Sam Houston State University / Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint

8

Case 4:11-cv-01951 Document 1

36.

Filed in TXSD on 05/23/11 Page 9 of 12

The violations committed by Defendant were committed willfully within the meaning of

the Fair Labor Standards Act. VIII. DAMAGES 37.

As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, Plaintiffs are entitled to monetary damages, including but not limited to back pay, front pay, mental anguish and other non-pecuniary damages, punitive damages, expert witness fees, court costs and attorney fees. Plaintiffs are also entitled to equitable remedies.

38.

Plaintiffs are entitled to approximately seven weeks pay from prior to their contractual

employment.

39.

As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct under the Fair Labor Standards Act,

Plaintiffs are entitled to damages, including the amount of overtime which was not paid and which should have been paid during approximately seven weeks of overtime work.

40.

Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act provides that any employer who violates

the statute shall be liable for unpaid overtime pay and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. Therefore, Plaintiffs also seek an award of liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid overtime pay.

41.

Plaintiffs further seek liquidated damages as a result of Defendant’s willful failure and

refusal to pay overtime in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 207.

42.

Plaintiffs also seek compensation for the out-of-pocket expenses and costs of court they

have incurred and will incur in this action. Plaintiffs are also entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee.

43.

Plaintiffs seek pre- and post-judgment interest on all amounts awarded.

Graybill, et al. v. Sam Houston State University / Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint

9

Case 4:11-cv-01951 Document 1

Filed in TXSD on 05/23/11 Page 10 of 12

PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs request that: 1.

The Court assume jurisdiction of this cause and that Defendant be cited to appear;

2.

The Court award damages to Plaintiffs as specified above;

3.

The Court award reasonable attorney’s fees, expert fees and costs as permitted by statute;

4.

The Court award Plaintiffs pre- and post-judgment interest at the highest rates allowed;

and 5.

Plaintiffs further pray for any such other relief as the Court may find proper, whether at

law or in equity.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Kerry O’Brien Kerry V. O’Brien Texas Bar No. 24038469 S. D. Tex. Admission No. 1021724 O’BRIEN LAW FIRM PC 2901 Bee Cave Rd., Box I Austin, Texas 78746 ko@obrienlawpc.com ph (512) 828-7131 fx (512) 328-6911 Counsel for Plaintiffs Attorney-in-Charge

Graybill, et al. v. Sam Houston State University / Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint

10

Case 4:11-cv-01951 Document 1 FiledAin TXSD on 05/23/11 Page 11 of 12 EXHIBIT

Case 4:11-cv-01951 Document 1

Filed in TXSD on 05/23/11 Page 12 of 12

Case 4:11-cv-01951 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 05/23/11 Page 1 of 2 11-cv-1951 CIVIL COVER SHEET

OJS 44 (Rev. 12/07)

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

GARRY S. GRAYBILL & JASMYNE GRAYBILL

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY

BEXAR

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

WALKER

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorney’s (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

Attorneys (If Known)

Kerry O'Brien, O'Brien Law Firm PC 2901 Bee Cave Rd., Box I, Austin, TX 78746; ph (512) 828-7131

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff

(Place an “X” in One Box Only)

’ 1

U.S. Government Plaintiff

’ 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)

(For Diversity Cases Only) PTF Citizen of This State ’ 1

’ 2

U.S. Government Defendant

’ 4 Diversity

Citizen of Another State

’ 2

’

2

Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State

’ 5

’ 5

Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country

’ 3

’

3

Foreign Nation

’ 6

’ 6

(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

IV. NATURE OF SUIT CONTRACT

’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’

110 Insurance 120 Marine 130 Miller Act 140 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment 151 Medicare Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans (Excl. Veterans) 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran’s Benefits 160 Stockholders’ Suits 190 Other Contract 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise REAL PROPERTY 210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property

’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’

’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’

V. ORIGIN ’ 1 Original Proceeding

and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4 of Business In This State

DEF ’ 1

(Place an “X” in One Box Only) TORTS PERSONAL INJURY 310 Airplane 315 Airplane Product Liability 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 330 Federal Employers’ Liability 340 Marine 345 Marine Product Liability 350 Motor Vehicle 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability 360 Other Personal Injury CIVIL RIGHTS 441 Voting 442 Employment 443 Housing/ Accommodations 444 Welfare 445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment 446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other 440 Other Civil Rights

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

PERSONAL INJURY ’ 362 Personal Injury Med. Malpractice ’ 365 Personal Injury Product Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 371 Truth in Lending ’ 380 Other Personal Property Damage ’ 385 Property Damage Product Liability PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence Habeas Corpus: ’ 530 General ’ 535 Death Penalty ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 550 Civil Rights ’ 555 Prison Condition

State Court

BANKRUPTCY

’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 830 Patent ’ 840 Trademark

SOCIAL SECURITY 861 HIA (1395ff) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 864 SSID Title XVI 865 RSI (405(g)) FEDERAL TAX SUITS ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant) ’ 871 IRS—Third Party 26 USC 7609

’ ’ ’ ’ ’

OTHER STATUTES

’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’

IMMIGRATION ’ 462 Naturalization Application ’ 463 Habeas Corpus Alien Detainee ’ 465 Other Immigration Actions

’

400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 810 Selective Service 850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange 875 Customer Challenge 12 USC 3410 890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 892 Economic Stabilization Act 893 Environmental Matters 894 Energy Allocation Act 895 Freedom of Information Act 900Appeal of Fee Determination Under Equal Access to Justice 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

Appeal to District

(Place an “X” in One Box Only)

’ 2 Removed from

’ 610 Agriculture ’ 620 Other Food & Drug ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 630 Liquor Laws ’ 640 R.R. & Truck ’ 650 Airline Regs. ’ 660 Occupational Safety/Health ’ 690 Other LABOR ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards Act ’ 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations ’ 730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting & Disclosure Act ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation ’ 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. Security Act

from ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred ’ 6 Multidistrict another district Reopened Litigation (specify)

’ 3 Remanded from Appellate Court

from ’ 7 Judge Magistrate Judgment

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

29 USC sect 201 et seq. / 42 USC sect 2000e et seq.

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:

sex discrimination and retaliation (Title VII of the CRA of 1964), unpaid overtime (FLSA)

’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION VII. REQUESTED IN UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 COMPLAINT: VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions): JUDGE IF ANY DATE

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: ’ Yes ’ No JURY DEMAND:

DEMAND $

DOCKET NUMBER

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

/s/ Kerry V. O'Brien

05/23/2011 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT #

AMOUNT

Print

APPLYING IFP

Save As...

Export as FDF

JUDGE

Retrieve FDF File

MAG. JUDGE

Reset

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/07)

Case 4:11-cv-01951 Document 1-1

Filed in TXSD on 05/23/11 Page 2 of 2

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44 Authority For Civil Cover Sheet The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: I. (a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title. (b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the “defendant” is the location of the tract of land involved.) (c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section “(see attachment)”.

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.C.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an “X” in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.

United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.

United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an “X” in this box.

Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.

Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an “X” in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerks in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive.

V.

Origin. Place an “X” in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.

Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.

Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date.

Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.

Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers.

Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.

Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judge’s decision.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.

Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service VII.

Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.

Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preliminary injunction.

Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.