Carroll v. Trump

650 F.Supp.3d 213

E. Jean CARROLL, Plaintiff, v. Donald J. TRUMP, Defendant.

22-cv-10016 (LAK)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

Signed January 13, 2023

Roberta Kaplan, Joshua Matz, Shawn Crowley, Matthew Craig, Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Alina Habba, Michael T. Madaio, Habba Madaio & Associates LLP, Attorney for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Lewis A. Kaplan, District Judge.

Plaintiff E. Jean Carroll alleges that businessman Donald J. Trump, as he then was, raped her in a dressing room at the New York department store, Bergdorf Goodman, more than two decades ago. Mr. Trump denies the allegation. These circumstances have given rise to two lawsuits now before me.

The first ("Carroll I") originally began in a state court, but it later was removed to this one. It accuses Mr. Trump only of libeling Ms. Carroll in a series of statements he issued in June 2019, shortly after Ms. Carroll went public with her account of the alleged rape.¹ It does not include any claim based on the alleged rape itself. That doubtless is so because such a claim almost certainly would have been barred by the statute of limitations at the time the case was filed.² But the law then changed.

In 2022, New York enacted the Adult Survivors Act (the "ASA").³ Under the ASA, persons who allegedly were abused sexually as adults were given a new one-year period within which to sue their alleged abusers. Ms. Carroll then brought this action ("Carroll II") to recover damages and other relief for (1) the alleged rape, and (2) additional libels allegedly committed by Mr. Trump in a statement he made on October 12, 2022.

As is obvious, the central issue in both Carroll I and Carroll II is exactly the same - whether Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll. If he did not, then Ms. Carroll's sexual assault claim in Carroll II and her libel claims in both cases likely would fail. If he did, then little would remain in either case except perhaps a few minor issues related to Mr. Trump's statements and determination of damages.⁴

Carroll II - this case - now is before me on Mr. Trump's motion to dismiss the complaint.⁵ He contends that the sexual abuse claim must be dismissed because the ASA violates the Due Process Clause of the New York State Constitution. He argues also that the libel claim is legally insufficient because Ms. Carroll's complaint fails to allege what New York law refers to as "special damages." Both of his arguments are without merit.

Facts

As this is a motion to dismiss the complaint, the plaintiff's well-pleaded factual allegations and all inferences that reasonably may be drawn from them are deemed true. The fact that Mr. Trump denies Ms. Carroll's allegations does not enter into the analysis at this stage of the case. What, if anything, actually occurred must await further proceedings if the complaint withstands the present motion.

The Alleged Rape

As I wrote in Carroll I:

"According to the complaint [(in Carroll I, which in these respects is identical to that in this case)], Mr. Trump, then a private citizen, encountered Ms. Carroll at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan some time between the fall of 1995 and the spring of 1996. Ms. Carroll, who was an advice columnist appearing on television, alleges that Mr. Trump recognized her and asked her to help him select a present for a woman who was not with him at the store. The two eventually went to the lingerie department, where, according to the complaint, Mr. Trump insisted that the plaintiff try on a bodysuit. Ms. Carroll alleges next that what she first perceived as playful banter took a dark turn when Mr. Trump closed the door of a dressing room, pushed her against a wall, and began kissing her without her consent. She claims that she pushed Mr. Trump away and laughed at him, and that he then pressed her against the wall once more, pulled down her tights, and forcibly raped her for several minutes until she managed to push him off and flee the store."⁶

The Story Comes Out

"Ms. Carroll asserts that she immediately told one friend about the alleged rape and told another friend in the coming days. She did not, however, make the allegations public at that time. They remained private for many years."⁷

The reasons they remained private are spelled out in the Carroll II complaint, the truth of which must be assumed for purposes of this motion.

Initially, according to the complaint, Ms. Carroll was in shock and did not wish to think of herself as a rape victim.⁸ The two friends in whom she confided gave her conflicting advice about reporting the event.⁹ Ultimately, she was persuaded by the advice of the friend who advised her to keep quiet. That friend stressed that Mr. Trump was powerful and would "bury" Ms. Carroll if she came forward.¹⁰ Ms. Carroll says she "knew how brutal and dangerous Trump could be," feared "being dragged through the mud if she reported the rape," "was convinced that nobody would believe her if she came forward," and "like so many other survivors of sexual assault, [she] also blamed herself" for her stupidity in "agreeing to go lingerie shopping with Trump."¹¹ She "also considered that, in our society, women who have been raped are looked at as 'spoiled goods,' and she resented the fact that practically every woman who courageously came forward with their stories of abuse was subjected to questions like 'why didn't you scream' and 'why didn't you come forward immediately.' "¹² "She thus chose silence" and kept still for years.¹³

Ms. Carroll Goes Public in 2019

In the fullness of time, the Harvey Weinstein revelations in The New York Times and their sequelae, including the public reaction to women coming forward with accounts of prior sexual abuse, triggered for Ms. Carroll a process that resulted in a decision to begin writing a book.¹⁴ Her book told of her experiences with "twenty-one men who had, each in his own way, left indelible and ugly marks on her story."¹⁵ One of those men was Donald Trump.

On June 21, 2019, New York magazine published an excerpt from the plaintiff's then forthcoming book. The excerpt tells a more detailed version of the allegations outlined above. The book was published on July 2, 2019."¹⁶

Mr. Trump's 2019 Reaction

As described elsewhere, Mr. Trump, at that time President, responded to the emergence of Ms. Carroll's allegations with a number of demeaning, insulting and allegedly defamatory remarks about Ms. Carroll.¹⁷ As Ms. Carroll's claims regarding those remarks are at issue in Carroll I and not in this case, there is no need to elaborate upon them here.

Carroll I

Ms. Carroll commenced Carroll I against Mr. Trump in 2019 for making allegedly libelous statements about her in the wake of the rape allegation made public by Ms. Carroll. As noted, she could not then sue him for the alleged rape because the New York statute of limitations for such an action had expired.¹⁸ In any case, the details of Carroll I are not relevant to the present motion and need not be discussed here.

The New York Adult Survivors Act

In the midst of all this, New York in May 2022 enacted the ASA which, in relevant part, created a one-year revival period, starting November 24, 2022, during which adult survivors of sexual assault could sue their abusers despite the expiration of the previously applicable statutes of limitation.¹⁹

Ms. Carroll Announces Intent to Sue Under the ASA, and Mr. Trump Responds

On August 8, 2022, more than three months before the effective date of the ASA, Ms. Carroll's counsel announced privately to her adversaries and to the Court that Ms. Carroll would sue Mr. Trump for damages for the alleged rape once the ASA became effective on November 24.²⁰ Mr. Trump on October 12, 2022 responded by posting this statement on his social media outlet:

"This 'Ms. Bergdorf Goodman case' is a complete con job, and our legal system in this Country, but especially in New York State (just look at Peekaboo James), is a broken disgrace. You have to fight for years, and spend a fortune, in order to get your reputation back from liars, cheaters, and hacks. * * * I don't know this woman, have no idea who she is, other than it seems she got a picture of me many years ago, with her husband, shaking my hand on a reception line at a celebrity charity event. She completely made up a story that I met her at the doors of this crowded New York City Department Store and, within minutes, 'swooned' her. It is a Hoax and a lie, just like all the other Hoaxes that have been played on me for the past seven years. And, while I am not supposed to say it, I will. This woman is not my type! She has no idea what day, what week, what month, what year, or what decade this so-called 'event' supposedly took place. The reason she doesn't know is because it never happened, and she doesn't want to get caught up with details or facts that can be proven wrong. If you watch Anderson Cooper's interview with her, where she was promoting a really crummy book, you will see that it is a complete Scam. She changed her story from beginning to end, after the commercial break, to suit the purposes of CNN and Andy Cooper. Our Justice System is broken along with almost everything else in our Country."

He then continued:

"In the meantime, and for the record, E. Jean Carroll is not telling the truth, is a woman who I had nothing to do with, didn't know, and would have no interest in knowing her if I ever had the chance. Now all I have to do is go through years more of legal nonsense in order to clear my name of her and her lawyer's phony attacks on me. This can only happen to 'Trump'!"²¹

Carroll II

A bare nine minutes after the ASA became effective on Thanksgiving morning, Ms. Carroll brought the present lawsuit - Carroll II - against Mr. Trump. The complaint contains two claims for relief.

The first seeks compensatory and punitive damages and other relief for Mr. Trump's alleged rape and groping of Ms. Carroll in the Bergdorf dressing room years ago. The timeliness of that claim...