Doe ex rel. Doe v. Piraino

688 F.Supp.3d 635

Jane DOE, a minor, BY her parents and next friends John DOE and Judy Doe,John Doe, in his individual capacity and Judy Doe,in her individual capacity, Plaintiffs, v. Robert PIRAINO, Music City Fencing Club, Inc.,and United States Fencing Association, Defendants.

Case No. 3:22-cv-00560

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

Filed August 17, 2023

George H. Smith, Smith & Associates, P.C, Decatur, GA, W. Gary Blackburn, Bryant B. Kroll, The Blackburn Firm, PLLC, Nashville, TN, for Plaintiffs.

C. Gavin Shepherd, Dean Thomas Howell, Woolf, McClane, Bright, Allen & Carpenter, PLLC, Knoxville, TN, for Defendants Robert Piraino, Music City Fencing Club, Inc.

William R. Johnson, Tyson & Mendes, Brentwood, TN, for Defendant United States Fencing Association.

MEMORANDUM

ALETA A. TRAUGER, United States District Judge

The plaintiffs, Jane Doe and her parents, John Doe and Judy Doe ("parents"), bring suit against defendants Robert Piraino, Music City Fencing Club, Inc. ("MCFC"), and USA Fencing (incorrectly identified in the Amended Complaint as United States Fencing Association), asserting claims arising from Piraino's sexual abuse of Jane Doe while she was a minor and he was her fencing coach. The plaintiffs assert the following claims: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress against Piraino and MCFC; (2) assault and battery against Piraino and MCFC; (3) negligence, negligent supervision, and negligence per se against all defendants; (4) a claim against Piraino under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a), for violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a) and 1594(a); (5) a claim against Piraino under 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a) based on his violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a); (6) claims against MCFC and USA Fencing under 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a) based on several different theories of liability; (7) a claim against Piraino under 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a), which creates a civil cause of action for any person who suffered a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251, a federal statute criminalizing the sexual exploitation of children; and (8) a claim against MCFC on the grounds that it is vicariously liable for Piraino's violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251.

Now before the court are: (1) Piraino and MCFC's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Portions of the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 41); (2) USA Fencing's Motion to Strike Portions of the First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 43-1); and (3) USA Fencing's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 44-1). Piraino and MCFC also join in and adopt USA Fencing's motions. The plaintiffs have filed a Response in opposition to each of these motions (Doc. Nos. 52-55), and the defendants have filed Reply briefs in further support of each of the motions (Doc. Nos. 56-59).

For the reasons set forth herein, both Motions to Dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part. USA Fencing's Motion to Strike will be denied in its entirety. Piraino and MCFC's Motion to Strike will be granted in one respect but otherwise denied.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL SUMMARY

Very generally, the plaintiffs allege that Jane Doe suffered sexual abuse from Piraino, her fencing coach, while she was a member of the MCFC. Piraino is the owner, principal, and former head coach of MCFC. MCFC is a Tennessee corporation whose principal place of business is in Nashville. At all times relevant to the FAC, it was "Tennessee's #1 Olympic fencing club." (Doc. No. 36 ¶ 6.)

USA Fencing, a not-for-profit corporation based in Colorado Springs, Colorado, is the national governing body for the Olympic sport of fencing in the United States. As alleged in the FAC, USA Fencing is responsible for, among other things,

promoting the sport of fencing in the United States, determining the standards by which athletes will be chosen to represent the U.S. in international competition, maintaining a national membership system for students, coaches, referees, and other members of the fencing community, and creating a common set of rules and policies that govern members and clubs when participating in fencing-related activities.

(Id. ¶ 15.) Further, "[f]encers, coaches, and referees must be members of USA Fencing in order to compete or otherwise participate in USA Fencing-sanctioned tournaments, camps, and other events." (Id. ¶ 16.) USA Fencing has more than 30,000 members and 700 approved fencing clubs in the United States. Its operations are organized into six "regions." (Id. ¶ 19.) Tennessee, along with most of the other states in the southeastern quadrant of the country, is a member of Region 6. During the time relevant to this lawsuit, USA Fencing's Tennessee Division included 14 clubs with more than 300 members, and it held 10 to 15 tournaments annually in Tennessee. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 20.) In the summer of 2014, Piraino began acting as Chair of the Tennessee Division of USA Fencing and, at some point before he started abusing Jane Doe, was "hired" by USA Fencing as Regional Coordinator for Region 6. (Id. ¶¶ 45, 47.)

Jane Doe began taking fencing lessons at MCFC in July 2017, when she was eleven years old. (Id. ¶ 91.) During the spring or summer of 2019, when she was thirteen, she sought Piraino's assistance in drafting an essay for a USA Fencing-sponsored college scholarship competition. (Id. ¶¶ 93-94.) Piraino agreed to help her—but only if she sent him photos of herself in a bikini, which she did. (Id. ¶ 95.) The sexual abuse, conducted primarily electronically, began at this time. Over the following months, Piraino sent messages to Jane Doe via text and SnapChat,¹ requesting more photos. (Id. ¶ 96.)

Though initially reluctant, Jane Doe agreed to provide nude or semi-nude photographs of herself in sexually suggestive positions when Piraino offered to compensate her with a prepaid debit card. (Id. ¶¶ 97-99.) Piraino's inappropriate interactions with Jane Doe continued for well over a year, during which they exchanged thousands of sexually explicit text messages, photographs and videos. (Id. ¶¶ 101, 104-08, 118-19.) Piraino preserved the photos and videos and distributed them to others. (Id. ¶¶ 110, 129-32, 229, 231.)²

When Jane Doe complied with Piraino's demands, he provided her with money and fencing equipment, and he waived fees for lessons and fencing-related activities. (Id. ¶¶ 97-99, 113.) During practices at MCFC, Piraino would touch Jane Doe's inner thigh, while correcting her technique; he would also hug, kiss, and grope her. (Id. ¶ 120.) He gave her massages, during which he would fondle her while moaning and grunting sexually. (Id.) If Jane Doe did not comply with Piraino's demands, he berated her in front of other students and singled her out for harsh treatment and physical punishment, including by making her repeatedly perform exercises that he knew aggravated a shoulder injury that initially manifested itself sometime in 2020, causing her "excruciating pain." (Id. ¶¶ 114-16.)

In December 2020, Jane Doe took a break from fencing to rest her injured shoulder. (Id. ¶ 122.) In early 2021, she told Piraino that she would no longer communicate with him. (Id. ¶ 123.) On July 27, 2021, she reported the sexual misconduct to her psychotherapist. This disclosure led to Piraino's arrest in August 2021. Piraino was charged with 108 counts, based on criminal conduct involving Jane Doe and another minor. (Id. ¶¶ 126, 134.)

The plaintiffs initiated this action on July 27, 2022. Shortly after the filing of the original Complaint (Doc. No. 1), they sought leave both to proceed pseudonymously and to stay the case pending the resolution of criminal charges against Piraino in the Criminal Court for Davidson County (Doc. Nos. 10, 13). The court granted both motions, and this case was stayed through December 2022. (Doc. Nos. 16, 17, 23.) At that time, the plaintiffs provided notice that Piraino had pleaded guilty to "multiple counts relating to his sexual abuse of Jane Doe, including (1) two counts of especially aggravated exploitation of a minor and (2) one count of sexual exploitation of a minor via electronic means" and had been sentenced to 25 years in prison. (Doc. No. 21, at 1-2.)

After reinstatement of the case on the court's active docket, the plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment against Piraino and MCFC, and USA Fencing filed a motion to dismiss the claims in the original Complaint asserted against it. In response, the plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint ("FAC") (Doc. No. 36), which, as relevant here, adds new factual allegations in an attempt to remedy deficiencies identified in USA Fencing's motion. The court denied as moot the motions addressed to the original Complaint, and the defendants then filed the motions now before the court.

II. MOTIONS TO DISMISS

A. Legal Standard

Both Motions to Dismiss rely upon Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must "construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff." Courtright v. City of Battle Creek, 839 F.3d 513, 518 (6th Cir. 2016). When presented with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court "may consider the Complaint and any exhibits attached thereto, public records, items appearing in the record of the case and exhibits attached to defendant's motion to dismiss so long as they are referred to in the Complaint and are central to the claims contained therein." Bassett v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Amini v. Oberlin Coll., 259 F.3d 493, 502 (6th Cir. 2001)).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). However, "[t]he factual allegations in the complaint need to be sufficient to give notice to the defendant as to what claims are...