Doe v. Brown University et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 32 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint; granting 32 Motion to Amend; finding as moot 16 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 17 Motion to Strike ; finding as moot 22 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 23 Motion to Strike; Plaintiff is directed to file their Second Amended Complaint upon receipt of this Order. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 4/12/2017. (Jackson, Ryan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
BROWN UNIVERSITY, PHI KAPPA PSI,
INC., and JOHN SMITH,
C.A. No. 16-562 S
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Jane Doe’s Motion for Leave
to File a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 32.)
initiated this case in October 2016 against Brown University,
Phi Kappa Psi, Inc. (a fraternity at Brown University), and John
Smith (a Brown University student and Phi Kappa Psi member),
claiming civil liability on each of their parts arising from an
fraternity’s on-campus house on October 18, 2014. (Compl. ¶¶ 12, ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in January
2017, to which Defendants Phi Kappa Psi, Inc. and John Smith
each filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike specific
paragraphs. (See ECF Nos. 12, 16, 17, 22, 23.)
Complaint claims that Brown University’s actions violated Title
IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688
(counts I and II), that both Brown University and Phi Kappa Psi,
Inc. were negligent (counts III-V), and that Defendant Smith is
liable for assault and battery (count VI). (ECF No. 12.)
Plaintiff’s Proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) adds
a set of defendants related to the unincorporated Rhode Island
Alpha Chapter of Phi Kappa Psi, Inc.: two past Presidents and
two past Secretaries of the Rhode Island Alpha Chapter (“Alpha
Chapter Representatives”). (Proposed Second Am. Compl. §§ 16-20,
ECF No. 32-2.)
The SAC also adds detail throughout the pleading
to the factual bases for Plaintiff’s claims.
that these proposed additions are permissible pursuant to Rule
15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the
required to preserve her legal claims against those liable for
her alleged injuries. (Pl.’s Mem. in Supp. 1-2, ECF No. 32-1.)
Defendants Smith and Phi Kappa Psi, Inc. both object to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend on the basis that the
(count VI) against Defendant Smith (Smith Mem. in Supp. of Obj.
2, ECF No. 34-1), and for negligence (counts V and VI) against
Phi Kappa Psi, Inc. (PKP Mem. in Supp. of Obj. 2, ECF No. 35-1.)
Rule 15(a)(2) provides that the court should “freely give
leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”
A motion for leave
to amend may be denied “[i]n appropriate circumstances — undue
delay, bad faith, futility, and the absence of due diligence on
the movant’s part . . . .” Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d
24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182
“[A] request to amend . . . requires the court to
examine the totality of the circumstances and to exercise its
Corp. v. Garrity Oil Co., 884 F.2d 1510, 1517 (1st Cir. 1989)).
Given the leniency provided by Rule 15(a)(2) and that this
case is in the nascent stage of litigation, the Court allows
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 32) is therefore GRANTED.
motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 16, 22) and motions to strike (ECF
Nos. 17, 23) MOOT because both motions are based on the Amended
These Defendants have thirty days to refile their
respective motions to dismiss and motions to strike, if they
wish, based on the Second Amended Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
Date: April 12, 2017
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?