Moore et al v. Piedmont Business Colleges, Inc. et al

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Pending before the court is a Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (Docket No. 30 ) filed by defendant Piedmont Business Colleges, Inc. F/K/A Miller-Motte Technical College ("Miller-Motte"), to which plain tiff Jessica Nichole Moore has filed a Response (Docket No. 32), and Miller-Motte has filed a Reply (Docket No. 35). The defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 1/6/2016. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh) Modified on 1/6/2016 (eh).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JESSICA NICHOLE MOORE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
PIEDMONT BUSINESS COLLEGES,
INC. F/K/A MILLER-MOTTE
TECHNICAL COLLEGE,
Defendant.

Docket No. 3:14-cv-2390
Judge Aleta A. Trauger

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the court is a Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (Docket
No. 30) filed by defendant Piedmont Business Colleges, Inc. F/K/A Miller-Motte Technical
College (“Miller-Motte”), to which plaintiff Jessica Nichole Moore has filed a Response (Docket
No. 32), and Miller-Motte has filed a Reply (Docket No. 35). For the reasons discussed herein,
Miller-Motte’s motion will be denied.
BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This is the third time the court is considering a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s pleading
in this action, and it pertains to the fourth complaint that the plaintiff has filed. A more complete
discussion of the background, including the factual allegations and a more detailed procedural
history, can be found in the court’s July 28, 2015 Memorandum and Order dismissing the
plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, familiarity with which is presumed. (Docket No. 28.)
Briefly, this case involves allegations by the plaintiff that she was sexually harassed and
assaulted by fellow students while attending Miller Motte and that Miller Motte negligently

1

failed to intervene, despite her complaints, in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments
of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688 (“Title IX”).
On May 19, 2015, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s first Amended Complaint without
prejudice, finding that “the Amended Complaint fail[ed] to allege necessary facts underlying the
plaintiff’s claims, including (1) the identities of [the plaintiff’s] perpetrators; (2) the identities of
the school authorities to whom the harassment and assault were reported; (3) the dates and times
of the harassment and assaults; (4) the dates and times that [the plaintiff and a witness identified
in the pleadings] reported the incidents of abuse to the administration, and (5) the location(s)
where the harassment and assault occurred.” (Docket No. 20, p. 4.)
On July 28, 2015, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint on the
grounds that the plaintiff had not sufficiently supplemented the factual allegations as ordered by
the court and had also failed, without explanation, to timely respond to the defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 28.) Due to the serious nature of the
allegations, however, the court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice and
allowed the plaintiff an additional opportunity to amend the pleadings on or before August 28,
2015. (Id. at 8.)
On August 28, 2015, the plaintiff timely filed her Third Amended Complaint. (Docket
No. 29.) The Third Amended Complaint streamlines the alleged incidents of harassment and
assault; identifies several of the students who allegedly harassed the plaintiff, including the
perpetrators of some of the more serious incidents alleged; and clarifies that “all” of the incidents
of alleged harassment “were reported to school executives and officials to no avail.” (Id. at 3.)
On September 11, 2015, the defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint, along with a Memorandum in Support. (Docket Nos. 30, 31.) On September 25,
2

2015, the plaintiff filed a Response (Docket No. 32), and on October 2, 2015 – with leave of
court – the defendant filed a Reply (Docket No. 35).
LEGAL STANDARD
In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the court
will “construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept its allegations as
true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487
F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007); Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 619 (6th Cir. 2002). The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only that a plaintiff provide “a short and plain statement
of the claim that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). The court must
determine only whether “the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims,” not
whether the plaintiff can ultimately prove the facts alleged. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534
U.S. 506, 511 (2002) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)).
The complaint’s allegations, however, “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). To establish the
“facial plausibility” required to “unlock the doors of discovery,” the plaintiff cannot rely on
“legal conclusions” or “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” but, instead,
the plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79
(2009). “[O]nly a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.”
Id. at 679; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.

3

ANALYSIS
The defendants argue that the Third Amended Complaint should be dismissed because it
“makes only insignificant changes to the Second Amended Complaint,” focusing in particular on
the fact that the Third Amended Complaint still does not identify all of the alleged harassers, the
timing of the reports of the harassment to Miller Motte, the specific content of those reports, or
to whom the reports were made. (Docket No. 31, pp. 2-3.) While it is true that there are still
details missing to flesh out the plaintiff’s story (including the timing of her reports to Miller
Motte), it is not necessary at the pleadings phase for every fact supporting the plaintiff’s claim to
be articulated. The plaintiff has clearly made efforts to provide information responsive to the
requests in the court’s prior Orders. And she continues to name several individuals at Miller
Motte to whom reports of the alleged harassment were made. The court finds that while the
changes between the Second and Third Amended Complaints may have been minor, in sum the
plaintiff has now adduced sufficient allegations to allow the action to proceed. Critically, she
has clarified her allegation that all of the alleged incidents of harassment were reported to Miller
Motte authorities, a fact that was not entirely clear from earlier versions of the pleadings.
Accordingly, the court finds that this action may proceed.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
Enter this 6th day of January 2016.
______________________________
ALETA A. TRAUGER
United States District Judge

4