Doe v. The Univ. of N.C. Sys.

1

JACOB DOE, Plaintiff, v. THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SYSTEM; THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL; THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, formerly known as The University of North Carolina Board of Trustees; BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA; KEVIN GUSKIEWICZ, in his official capacity; ELIZABETH HALL, individually and in her official capacity; JEREMY ENLOW, individually and in his official capacity; Beth Froehling, individually and in her official capacity; REBECCA GIBSON, individually and in her official capacity; JACLYN FEENEY, individually and in her official capacity; DAVID ELROD, individually and in his official capacity; and DESIREE RIECKENBERG, individually and in her official capacity, Defendants.

CIVIL No. 1:23-cv-00041-MR

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division

March 4, 2024

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

MARTIN REIDINGER, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

THIS MATTER is before this Court on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss [Docs. 32, 34] and Defendants' Motion for Change of Venue [Doc. 44].

I. BACKGROUND

Jacob Doe^[1] (“Plaintiff”), a former student of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, brings this action asserting federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”), as well as various state law claims, challenging the handling of the disciplinary proceedings brought against him after four female classmates, Jane Roes 1-4 (hereinafter “Roe 1” through “Roe 4”), accused him of sexual misconduct. [See Doc. 1]. These proceedings resulted in Plaintiff losing his Morehead-Cain scholarship and being permanently expelled from the University of North Carolina System. [See e.g., Id. at ¶ 560].

In his Verified Complaint, Plaintiff names the following Defendants the University of North Carolina System (the “UNC System”); the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (“UNC-CH” or “the University”); the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Board of Trustees f/k/a the University of North Carolina Board of Trustees (“Board of Trustees”); the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina (“Board of Governors”); Kevin Guskiewicz, the Chancellor of UNC-CH (“Chancellor Guskiewicz”); Elizabeth Hall, the Interim Head of UNC-CH's Equal Opportunity and Compliance Office (“Hall”); Jeremy Enlow, a Title IX investigator for UNC-CH (“Enlow”); Beth Froehling, a Title IX investigator for UNC-CH (“Froehling”); Rebecca Gibson, the Director of Report and Response in UNC-CH's Equal Opportunity and Compliance Office (“Gibson”); Jaclyn Feeney, a Title IX investigator for UNC-CH (“Feeney”); David Elrod, a hearing officer for one of Plaintiff's hearings (“Elrod”); and Desiree Rieckenberg, the UNC-CH Dean of Students (“Rieckenberg”). This Court will refer to the UNC System, UNC-CH, the Board of Trustees, and the Board of Governors as the “UNC Entity Defendants”; to Chancellor Guskiewicz, Hall, Enlow, Froehling, Gibson, Feeney, Elrod, and Rieckenberg as the “UNC Employee Defendants”; and to the collective as “Defendants.” [See generally id.]. Except for Chancellor Guskiewicz, who is sued in his official capacity only, the UNC Employee Defendants are sued in their respective official and individual capacities.^[2] In his Verified Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims for: (1) denial of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all Defendants (Count I); (2) violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., for erroneous outcome against UNC-CH (Count II); (3) breach of contract against UNC-CH (Count III); (4) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention against UNC-CH and Hall (Count IV); (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”) against the UNC Employee Defendants (Count V); (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) against the UNC Employee Defendants (Count VI); (7) tortious interference with contract against UNC-CH and the UNC Employee Defendants (Count VII); and (8) violations of the North Carolina Constitution against UNC-CH (Count VIII).

Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3), and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that venue is improper in the Western District of North Carolina, that some of Plaintiff's claims cannot be brought in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment, that some of Plaintiff's claims are precluded by either sovereign or qualified immunity, and that Plaintiff has failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. [See Docs. 32-35]. By way of a separate motion, Defendants further argue that this matter should be transferred to the District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). [Doc. 44]. Plaintiff has responded to Defendants' Motions [Docs. 39, 40, 47], and Defendants have replied [Docs. 42, 43, 48]. Thus, these motions are ripe for disposition.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A. Rule 12(b)(1) Standard

Where a defendant raises either Eleventh Amendment or sovereign immunity in seeking dismissal of a claim, that motion is properly considered pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as the defendant is contending that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim. Dickinson v. Univ. of N.C. , 91 F.Supp.3d 755, 761 (M.D. N.C. 2015); Johnson v. North Carolina, 905 F.Supp.2d 712, 719 (W.D. N.C. 2012) (citing Abril v. Virginia, 145 F.3d 182, 184 (4th Cir. 1998)); Beckham v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 569 F.Supp.2d 542, 547 (D. Md. 2008). At the pleading stage, when a defendant raises immunity as grounds for a 12(b)(1) motion, “all the facts alleged in the complaint are assumed to be true and the plaintiff, in effect, is afforded the same procedural protection as he would receive under a Rule 12(b)(6) consideration.” Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th Cir. 1982). Additionally, a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction “must be one without prejudice, because a court that lacks jurisdiction has no power to adjudicate and dispose of a claim on the merits.” S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc. v. Openband at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013).

B. Rule 12(b)(3) Standard

A court may dismiss an action that is filed in an improper venue. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3). “When considering a motion to dismiss for improper venue, a court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and must draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.” Moseley v. Fillmore Co., Ltd., 725 F.Supp.2d 549, 558 (W.D. N.C. 2010) (Reidinger, J.); see also Aggarao v. MOL Ship Mgmt. Co., Ltd., 675 F.3d 355, 366 (4th Cir. 2012).

C. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

The central issue for resolving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is whether the claims state a plausible claim for relief. See Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 189 (4th Cir. 2009). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the plaintiff's allegations are accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to him. Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir. 2009); Francis, 588 F.3d at 190-92. Although well-pled facts are accepted as true, “legal conclusions, elements of a cause of action, and bare assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” are not. Consumeraffairs.com, 591 F.3d at 255; Francis, 588 F.3d at 189.

The claims need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” but must contain sufficient factual allegations to suggest the required elements of the cause of action. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see also Consumeraffairs.com, 591 F.3d at 256. “[A] formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Nor will labels and legal conclusions suffice. Id. Rather, the Complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570; see also Consumeraffairs.com, 591 F.3d at 255. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads 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 (2009). The mere possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient for a claim to survive a motion to dismiss. Consumeraffairs.com, 591 F.3d at 256; Francis, 588 F.3d at 193. Ultimately, the well-pled factual allegations must move a plaintiff's claim from possible to plausible. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; Consumeraffairs.com, 591 F.3d at 256.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Venue

Defendants contend that this case should be dismissed for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3), or in the alternative that it should be transferred, in the interest of justice, to the Middle District of North Carolina pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. These two motions will be addressed first, as they are applicable to the action as a whole.

1. Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue

A civil action may be brought in “a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located[,]” or in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to a claim occurred[.]” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1)-(2).

Taking the allegations in Plaintiff's complaint as true, a number of the interactions between himself and Roes 3 and 4 that were reported as alleged sexual misconduct occurred “at his family home in Morganton[,]” North Carolina, and “at his condominium in Charlotte[,]” North Carolina, both of which are located within the Western District. [Doc. 1 at ¶ 161-63, 214-17]. Also, the bulk of Plaintiff's claims allege that UNC-CH and its employees committed...