Wells v. Inst. for Shipboard Educ.

SAMUEL WELLS, Plaintiff, v. INSTITUTE FOR SHIPBOARD EDUCATION d/b/a SEMESTER AT SEA, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 23-cv-00497-NYW

United States District Court, D. Colorado

February 23, 2023

ORDER ON MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRATINING ORDER

NINA Y. WANG JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (the “Motion”) filed on February 23, 2023. [Doc. 2]. This Court held a hearing on the Motion on February 23, 2023. For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is respectfully DENIED.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are drawn from the verified Complaint and the attached exhibits. [Doc. 1; Doc. 12]. Plaintiff Samuel Wells (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Wells”) initiated this civil action on February 23, 2023 and filed the instant Motion the same day. [Doc. 1; Doc. 2]. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is a “college student enrolled in the Spring 2023 school semester with Semester at Sea,” which is the business name of Defendant Institute for Shipboard Education (“Defendant” or “Semester at Sea”). [Doc. at 1 ¶ 1]. Semester at Sea is a learning institution “which operates a ship . . . on which it offers college courses during semesters spent abroad.” [Id. at ¶ 5]. Mr. Wells alleges that on or about February 12, 2023, he returned to the ship after spending time in port in Jordan, at which time he was detained by ship security to the ship's observation room on the basis that Mr. Wells appeared intoxicated. [Id. at ¶¶ 9-10]. Plaintiff avers that he did not harm any person or property during the incident, did not threaten to harm any person or property during the incident, and did not interfere with academic or ship operations during the incident. [Id. at ¶¶ 20-23]. Plaintiff was permitted to return to his quarters “[s]everal hours later.” [Id. at ¶ 11].

By letter dated February 17, 2023, Defendant's Assistant Dean of Students contacted Plaintiff via email requesting to have a “conference” with Plaintiff the following day to discuss the events of February 12. [Id. at ¶ 16; Doc. 1-3]. The February 17 letter advised Mr Wells that:

I have received a report that alleges your involvement on February 12, 2023 in violation of the Standards of Conduct as found in the Voyager's Handbook and/or Student Addendum. Specifically, it alleges that you have violated the following Standards of Conduct in On-Ship (observation room):

• Misuse of Alcohol

• Failure to Comply with Directions of Officials

• Abusive Behavior

• Disruptive Behavior

[Doc. 1-3 at 1]. The Assistant Dean further “encourage[d] [Mr. Wells] to read the Standards of Conduct in the Voyager's Handbook available on Homeport and the Semester at Sea website, so you understand the rights and responsibilities ascribed to you in the conduct process.” [Id. at 12]. Finally, the letter indicated that “[a]t the conference, I will explain the conduct process and answer your questions, review the complaint, let you review documents pertinent to the incident, and allow you to explain your understanding of what happened.” [Id. at 2].

Plaintiff alleges that he “met with [the Assistant Dean], cooperated in her request for a ‘conference,' and told her what he recalled of the Incident.” [Doc. 1 at ¶ 17]. He alleges that he was not shown any documents or informed that this was a formal hearing related to the incident.

[Id. at ¶ 18]. He asserts that if he had been informed it was a formal hearing, “it would have triggered certain contractual rights under the [Semester at Sea] Handbook, including the rights to know the charges made against him and to call witnesses and have a support person with him throughout the Hearing process.” [Id. at ¶ 19].

Plaintiff alleges that on or about February 18, 2023, the Assistant Dean

notified Plaintiff that she had been acting as a Hearing Officer, that she was conducting a formal investigation, that her ‘conference' with Plaintiff on the previous afternoon was actually a formal Hearing, that she reached a formal Decision to have Plaintiff Dismissed from the Program and removed from the Ship, and that Plaintiff would be removed from the Ship if he did not depart by noon on February 24, 2023 (local time).

[Id. at ¶ 25; Doc. 1-4]. Specifically, in the February 18 letter, the Assistant Dean made the following findings:

• Misuse of Alcohol - Responsible

• Failure to Comply with Directions of Officials - Responsible

• Abusive Behavior - Responsible

• Disruptive Behavior - Responsible

[Doc. 1-4 at 1]. The letter further stated:

This decision was made for the following reason(s): When we met you admitted that, as a result of alcohol use and nicotine withdrawal, you mistreated and spoke inappropriately to several members of the [Semester at Sea] staff, ship security team, and medical staff. While you don't remember every interaction, we discussed that your actions were verbally abusive.

Doc. 1-4 at 1]. Mr. Wells was then informed that the applicable sanction was dismissal from the program, and that the “[d]ismissal is your [sic] immediate and permanent removal from participation in the Semester at Sea program” but that

[p]ending no further violations, you may remain on the ship until you are able to secure transportation home. Should there be any additional violations or disruption you will be required to leave the ship immediately (once in port). Once you disembark the ship you will not be allowed to re-embark. You must disembark no later than 12:00 on February 24, 2023.

[Id. at 1-2].

Plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of the hearing procedures described in the Semester at Sea Handbook, including the opportunity to call witnesses and to have a support person attend the hearing. [Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 33-39]. Pursuant to the Handbook, Plaintiff had 48 hours to appeal this decision. [Id. at ¶ 26]. However, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant initially refused to provide a copy of the appeal record, and due to this “intentional delay,” he had fewer than 24 hours to prepare for his appeal on charges “that were not spelled out and that are based on documents he still has never seen.” [Id. at ¶ 30]. Plaintiff was informed that his appeal was denied and that the Executive Dean had approved his dismissal on February 22, 2023. [Id. at ¶ 31].

According to Plaintiff, the Semester at Sea ship is currently ported in Cyprus, Greece and is scheduled to leave port on February 24, 2023. [Id. at ¶ 6]. Plaintiff alleges that “[u]pon information and belief, [the] Ship's security will physically remove Plaintiff from the Ship by noon, Cyprus time, leaving him stranded in a foreign country.” [Id. at ¶ 32].

Plaintiff asserts two claims in this case, one for breach of contract and the other for defamation. [Id. at ¶¶ 53-71].^[1]Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that “Plaintiff and Defendant's relationship is defined by several documents which create contractual obligations to each other” and that “[t]he numerous violations of the express contractual obligations by Defendant resulted in intentionally denying Plaintiff a fair Hearing.” [Id. at ¶¶ 53, 55]. Furthermore, he asserts that Defendant has “published statements in Plaintiff's academic record stating that he” engaged in abusive conduct and has “threatened and intends to public these false and defamatory statements to the Colorado State University and to Plaintiff's home university where he has been accepted to the graduate accounting program to pursue his master's in accounting.” [Id. at ¶¶ 66-67]. Plaintiff requests “specific performance[] and . . . incidental and consequential damages” in his breach of contract claim and a “permanent injunction against publishing [the dean's decision], a permanent injunction against Defendant making defamatory statements against Plaintiff or his academic record, and . . . compensatory damages” for his defamation claim. [Id. at 8].

Mr. Wells filed his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order at 10:38 A.M. on February 23, 2023. [Doc. 2]. The case was reassigned to the undersigned at 1:45 P.M. [Doc. 8]. The Court held a hearing on the motion at 3:15 P.M., see [Doc. 10; Doc. 13], after which Defendant filed a Response to the Motion, [Doc. 11], and Plaintiff filed a declaration that “the factual allegations in the Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed in this action are true and correct.” [Doc. 12]. The Court turns to the Parties' arguments below.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 authorizes the court to enter preliminary injunctions and issue temporary restraining orders. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a), (b). “The requirements for issuing a [temporary restraining order] mirror the requirements for issuing a preliminary injunction.” Briscoe v. Sebelius, 927 F.Supp.2d 1109, 1114 (D. Colo. 2013). A party seeking preliminary injunctive relief must satisfy four factors: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood that the movant will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in the movant's favor; and (4) that the injunction is in the public interest. Petrella v. Brownback, 787 F.3d 1242, 1257 (10th Cir. 2015). A party seeking an injunction must demonstrate that “all four of the equitable factors weigh in its favor,” Sierra Club, Inc. v. Bostick, 539 Fed.Appx. 885, 888 (10th Cir. 2013) (emphasis in original), and a “plaintiff's failure to prove any one of the four preliminary injunction factors renders its request for injunctive relief unwarranted.” Vill. of Logan v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 577 Fed.Appx. 760, 766 (10th Cir. 2014). “Preliminary injunctions are extraordinary remedies requiring that the movant's right to relief be clear and unequivocal.” Planned Parenthood of Kan. v. Andersen, 882 F.3d 1205, 1223 (10th Cir. 2018).

AN...