Doe v. Brown University et al

Filing 38

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
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BROWN UNIVERSITY, PHI KAPPA PSI,
)
INC., and JOHN SMITH,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)
JANE DOE,

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.)

Plaintiff

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
incident

of

sexual

assault

that

allegedly

occurred

at

the

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.)

The Amended

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.

Plaintiff argues

that these proposed additions are permissible pursuant to Rule
15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the
additions

will

not

cause

any

delay

or

prejudice,

and

are

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
additional
Plaintiff

details
has

failed

to
to

the

allegations

state

a

are

plausible

futile

claim

for

because
assault

(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.”

2

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
(1962)).

“[A] request to amend . . . requires the court to

examine the totality of the circumstances and to exercise its
informed

discretion

considerations.”

Id.

in
at

constructing
30-31

a

(citing

balance
Quaker

of

State

pertinent
Oil

Ref.

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 SAC.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 32) is therefore GRANTED.
finds

Defendant

Smith’s

and

Defendant

Phi

Kappa

The Court

Psi,

Inc.’s

motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 16, 22) and motions to strike (ECF
Nos. 17, 23) MOOT because both motions are based on the Amended
Complaint.

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
Chief Judge
Date: April 12, 2017

3