Mancini v. Rollins Coll.

NICHOLAS MANCINI, Plaintiff, v. ROLLINS COLLEGE; JESSICA NARDUCCI; ORIANA JIMINEZ; KEN MILLER;REBECCA DECESARE; and MEGHAN HARTE WEYANT, Defendants.

Case No. 6:16-cv-2232-Orl-37KRS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

July 20, 2017

ORDER

This cause is before the Court on consideration of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 28), Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 36), and counsel's arguments and representations during a hearing held on May 18, 2017.

BACKGROUND

On December 28, 2016, former Rollins College student Nicholas Mancini ("Plaintiff") initiated this action against Defendants Rollins College ("Rollins") and five individuals ("Individual Defendants"):¹

(1) Jessica Narducci ("Investigator"), who was retained by Rollins as an investigator (Doc. 19, ¶ 7);(2) Oriana Jiminez ("Coordinator"), who was employed by Rollins as a Title IX coordinator (id. ¶ 8);

(3) Ken Miller ("Miller"), who was Rollins' Assistant Vice President of Public Safety (id. ¶ 9);

(4) Rebecca DeCesare ("Officer DeCesare"), who was the Dispatch Officer in the Rollins Campus Safety Department (id. ¶ 10); and

(5) Meghan Harte Weyant ("Dean Weyant"), who was Rollins' Dean of Students (id. ¶ 11).

In his 37-page Amended Complaint,² Plaintiff alleges that these Defendants are liable to him for their improper and unlawful handling of a student disciplinary proceeding that resulted from a female student's false accusation that he engaged in "non-consensual sexual activity" with her in his dormitory room at Rollins ("Room"). (See Doc. 19, ¶¶ 2, 28.) Plaintiff asserts the following federal and state law claims against Rollins (Counts I through VII), the Investigator and Coordinator (Count VII), and the remaining Individual Defendants (Counts I and V):

Count I - Title IX Gender Discrimination, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (id. ¶¶ 54-116);

Count II - Violation of the 14th Amendment (Procedural Due Process) (id. ¶¶ 117-29);

Count III - Breach of Contract (id. ¶¶ 130-35);

Count IV - Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (id. ¶¶ 136-40);

Count V - Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (id. ¶¶ 141-50);

Count VI - Estoppel and Reliance (id. ¶¶ 151-57); and

Count VII - Declaratory Judgment (id. ¶¶ 158-62).

Rollins and the Individual Defendants jointly filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Doc. 28 ("Motion")), and Plaintiff responded (Doc. 36 ("Response")). The Court conducted a hearing on May 18, 2017 ("Hearing"). (Doc. 55.) At the Hearing, Plaintiff conceded that the Court should dismiss Count V as to all Defendants, Count I as to the Individual Defendants, and Count VII as to the Coordinator and the Investigator. (See Doc. 36, p. 5, n.1 (conceding that Title IX does not provide for individual liability); id. at 17, n.2 (conceding that the "negligent infliction of emotional distress claim is due to be dismissed").) Plaintiff also conceded that he must reallege Count II under the Fifth Amendment. Based on Plaintiff's concessions, Rollins is the only remaining Defendant and Count II is due to be dismissed with leave to reassert. Upon consideration, the Court finds that the MTD is otherwise due to be denied.

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure set forth minimum pleading requirements. Rules 8 and 10 require plaintiffs to provide short and plain statements of their claims with simple and direct allegations set out in numbered paragraphs and distinct counts. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), (d) ("Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct."); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). If a complaint fails to state a plausible or legally sufficient claim, the defendant may file a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). See Popham v. Cobb Cty., Ga., 392 F. App'x 677, 678 (11th Cir. 2010).

In resolving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, courts must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations and determine whether the complaint sets forth plausible claims—that is claims with sufficient "factual content" to allow "the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 672, 678-79 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). Courts need not "accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). Further, courts may dismiss any claim that rests only on "conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts." See Oxford Asset Mgmt., Ltd. v. Jaharis, 297 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2002).

II. THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

According to the Amended Complaint,³ Plaintiff was a male student at Rollins College who was falsely accused by a female student ("Accuser") of engaging in "non-consensual sexual activity" with her in his Room ("Accusation"). (See Doc. 19.) Plaintiff's claims arise out of Defendants' handling of the Accusation: "this Complaint addresses Rollins' unlawful and/or gender biased treatment of innocent male students like [Plaintiff] via sexual misconduct proceedings that afford females unconstitutional preferential treatment." (See id. ¶¶ 2, 28.) Specifically, Plaintiff seeks damages and declaratory relief based on Rollins' allegedly "wrongful and unjustified imposition of sanctions based on [the Accuser's] false and unproven allegations of sexual misconduct, as well as Rollins' failure and refusal to investigate or report [Plaintiff's] own allegations of sexual misconduct." (Id.)

A. The Incident

In 2015, Rollins accepted Plaintiff for admission to the Class of 2019, awarded him a $60,000.00 academic scholarship, and provided him with copies of the Code and the Policy. (Id. ¶¶ 35, 36.) Plaintiff matriculated in the Fall of 2016, and he moved into the Room with his roommate ("S.P."). (See id. ¶ 44.) One evening during his second semester at Rollins, Plaintiff and S.P. went out drinking together. (See id.) They returned to theirRoom at 2:00 a.m. with another Rollins student ("A.S.") and two non-students ("Visitors").

At 2:30 a.m., the Accuser allegedly entered the Room without invitation. After approximately one half hour of visiting, during which the Accuser discussed the events of her evening, the Visitors departed, but Accuser stayed. Approximately ten minutes later, the Accuser allegedly kissed Plaintiff for five minutes before pulling back and stating that she should not "do this" because she has a boyfriend. Plaintiff responded that was fine. Although the Accuser then walked to the door, she did not leave. Instead, she "returned to the futon, straddled [Plaintiff] and began to kiss him again" without obtaining his consent. After several minutes, the Accuser stopped kissing Plaintiff, went over to S.P., and started kissing him. After another five minutes, the Accuser stopped, and again stated she has a boyfriend. Plaintiff and S.P. then walked the Accuser to her room which was in the same dormitory. (See id. ¶¶ 45-48, 85.) These late-night events are referred to as the "Incident."

The day after the Incident, at 11:30 a.m., the Accuser and her roommate ("K.E.") visited the Room, and the Accuser allegedly "acknowledged that she was also responsible" for the Incident. (See id. ¶¶ 49-50.) When the Accuser left, Plaintiff and S.P. "told K.E. everything that they remembered from the previous night." (See id. ¶ 51.)

B. Initial Proceedings

On January 19, 2016, the Accuser "contacted the Office of the Dean of Students" and "falsely" reported that Plaintiff and S.P. "assaulted her" in the Room. (See id. ¶ 52.) Rollins immediately issued the Contact Orders to Plaintiff and the Accuser. (See id.) Twodays later, the Coordinator provided Plaintiff with the Initial Notice, which advised that "a report of sexual assault had been alleged against" him.⁴ (See id. ¶ 55.) The same day, Plaintiff, Dean Weyant, the Coordinator, and Miller attended an "initial meeting" concerning the Accusation ("Initial Meeting") where: (1) Plaintiff stated that the Accuser initiated all physical contact with him "without asking for his consent" ("Consent Complaint"); (2) the Coordinator told Plaintiff to not make a report concerning his Consent Complaint and threatened him to "stay quiet" about his Consent Complaint; and (3) Miller "repeatedly accused [Plaintiff] of committing rape." (See id. ¶¶ 84-88.)

The week following the Initial Meeting, the Coordinator ignored Plaintiff's requests for information. (See id. ¶ 56.) In addition, Rollins took no action against Accuser after Plaintiff reported that the Accuser violated the Contact Order by attending a party sponsored by Plaintiff's fraternity and lacrosse team ("Contact Violation"). (See id. ¶¶ 53, 54, 78, 109, 110.)

On January 31, 2016, Rollins provided Plaintiff with the Additional Notice, which included a "written list of the allegations against him." (See id. ¶ 57.) Plaintiff "immediately" visited the Coordinator. (See id. ¶ 58.) Rather than provide "impartial guidance" and "resources" to Plaintiff, the Coordinator cursed at Plaintiff, told him to "dial it the f#@& down," and otherwise "demonstrated bias and prejudgment againsthim." (See id. ¶¶ 59-60.)

C. The Investigation

On February 1, 2016, the untrained Investigator conducted a scheduled interview with Plaintiff, but did not ask him "to submit a list of witnesses." (See id. ¶¶ 57, 70, 74.) The Investigator also did not give Plaintiff "the opportunity to submit questions to be asked" of the Accuser and other witnesses. (See id.) Rather, the Investigator: (1) interviewed witnesses chosen solely by the Investigator—including "high school girls" who opined on the Accuser's appearance in Instagram photos; (2) incorrectly summarized the statements of K.E. and another witness ("W.D."); (3) did not give witnesses an opportunity to review or correct the Investigator's summaries; (4) failed to question the Accuser about her...