Doe v. BMG Sports, LLC

• Decision Date: 04 February 2022
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:20-cv-688
• Citation: 584 F.Supp.3d 497
• Parties: John DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BMG SPORTS, LLC, d/b/a Amerileagues and Cincinnati Premier Youth Volleyball League, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

584 F.Supp.3d 497

John DOE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
BMG SPORTS, LLC, d/b/a Amerileagues and Cincinnati Premier Youth Volleyball League, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-688

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division.

Signed February 4, 2022

584 F.Supp.3d 502

Jennifer M. Kinsley, The Law Office of Jennifer Kinsley, Cincinnati, OH, for Plaintiffs.

David C. Ahlstrom, Joseph T. Mordino, Faulkner & Tepe, LLP, Cincinnati, OH, for Defendants BMG Sports LLC, Ben Goodyear.

Robert W. Hojnoski, Reminger Co., LPA, Cincinnati, OH, for Defendants Mariemont Recreation Association, Gregory Spreen.

OPINION AND ORDER

DOUGLAS R. COLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

584 F.Supp.3d 503

This cause comes before the Court on Defendants Mariemont City School District, Steven Estepp, and Lance Hollander's (collectively "School Defendants") Motion to Dismiss ("School Motion," Doc. 10), filed on November 19, 2020. Plaintiffs John Doe and W.W.¹ filed their Opposition (Doc. 17) on February 10, 2021, and the School Defendants filed a Reply (Doc. 20) on February 18, 2021.

Also before the Court is John Doe and W.W.’s February 3, 2021, Motion to Dismiss ("Doe Motion," Doc. 16) Defendants Cincinnati Premier Youth Volleyball League ("CPYVL") and Ben Goodyear's Counterclaims (Doc. 13). CPYVL and Goodyear (collectively the "League Defendants") filed their Opposition (Doc. 21) on February 23, 2021. John Doe and W.W. did not file a reply.

For the reasons stated more fully below, the Court GRANTS both Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 10, Doc. 16).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

For the purposes of analyzing the parties’ competing Motions to Dismiss, the Court accepts as true the factual allegations in Doe's Complaint² (as to the School Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss) and in the League Defendants’ counterclaims (as to Doe's Motion to Dismiss). Thus, the Court reports and relies on those allegations here, but with the disclaimer that these facts are not yet established—and may never be.

A. The Facts Underlying The School Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss.

The claims and counterclaims at issue here all arise out of activities that occurred at a school building in the Mariemont City School District ("School District" or "District"). The District is located on the east side of Cincinnati, Ohio, and includes students from the villages of Fairfax, Mariemont, and Terrace Park, as well as from the unincorporated areas of Plainville and William Meadows. (Compl., Doc. 1, #6³ ). It is headed by the Mariemont Board of Education ("Board of Education" or "Board"). There are two elementary schools in the District, one junior high school, and one high school. (Id. at #6–7).

Under Ohio law, the Board of Education is required to make its facilities available to private organizations and groups wishing to use its facilities "as social centers for the entertainment and education of the people." Ohio Rev. Code § 3313.76. Consistent with this obligation, the District entered into an agreement with one of the co-defendants in this case: the Mariemont Recreation Association ("MRA"). (Id. at #8). The MRA is a private, formerly incorporated,⁴ nonprofit organization that organizes youth sports for students enrolled in

584 F.Supp.3d 504

Mariemont's two elementary schools. (Id. at #7). One activity that the MRA offers is a youth volleyball team. (Id. at #8). In operating this team, the MRA has contracted with CPYVL, another co-defendant, and a vendor that matches the MRA's teams with opponents, schedules the dates and times of games, and sends referees to officiate those games. (Id. at #7).

Plaintiff W.W. participated in the MRA's youth volleyball programming. (Id. at #3). At the time of the incident giving rise to this litigation, September 23, 2018, W.W. was a fourth-grade student at Mariemont Elementary School. (Id. at #10–11). That day, W.W. and her team were playing a game against another CPYVL team at Mariemont Junior High School. (Id. at #11). W.W.’s father, John Doe, was present and assisting as a volunteer score board operator. (Id. ).

CPYVL supplied the referee for the game. He was an as-yet unidentified man in his 50s. (Id. at #3, 11). According to Doe, both before and during the game, Doe heard the referee make a series of offensive and sexualizing remarks about the female elementary school players. (Id. at #11).

Disturbed by the referee's conduct, Doe contacted W.W.’s coaches after the game. The coach told Doe that a complaint against the referee already had been filed. (Id. ). A few days later, one of the coaches contacted Doe and informed him that the referee "ha[d] been removed from the entire reffing board." (Id. at #12).

Doe remained concerned, though, that the referee still posed a threat to W.W. and her teammates. (Id. at #13). Accordingly, he reached out to the MRA to obtain the referee's name and to urge the organization to contact the parents of a player who had been specifically targeted by the referee's conduct. (Id. ). Unable to obtain the name of the referee through the MRA and dissatisfied with the organization's response to the incident, Doe took numerous steps. (Id. at #13–14). In addition to filing a police report, he also contacted defendant Ben Goodyear, head of the CPYVL; the principal of W.W.’s elementary school; and the principal of the junior high school⁵ where the incident took place. (Id. at #15–16). Doe was never able to obtain the referee's name, and "as the Fall 2018 volleyball season wound down, [he] had few answers as to how the Mariemont School District, the MRA and the CPYVL planned to keep children safe from the referee and other adults who may have illicit motives in working with juveniles." (Id. at #17).

The following year, in summer 2019, Doe registered W.W. for the MRA/CPYVL's upcoming fall volleyball season. (Id. ). Soon thereafter, the MRA emailed Doe to inform him that he was banned from attending any CPYVL events. (Id. at #18). When Doe attempted to follow-up with the MRA, he was directed to CPYVL's head, Ben Goodyear, who refused to explain the basis for the ban or what rules Doe had broken. (Id. at #19).

Approximately a week later, Doe met with Lance Hollander, the School District's Director of Administrative Services. (Id. at #20). While Hollander agreed that "there had been no process afforded, no basis provided for the ban, [and] no end date to [the] ban," he stated that he did not want

584 F.Supp.3d 505

to contact the MRA for fear that the ban would be extended to W.W. as well. (Id. ). Hollander later contacted Doe to inform him that the MRA had been unable to give him a reason for the ban. (Id. ).

Doe then scheduled a meeting with School Superintendent Steven Estepp. (Id. ). During this meeting, Estepp told Doe that he had concluded this was "not a matter worthy of [his] time" because no other parents had complained. (Id. at #21). Estepp then declined to investigate the ban "and disputed that it might have been imposed for any unlawful reason, while simultaneously asserting that he did not know the basis for the ban." (Id. ). Estepp also "expressed concern over the impact any investigation into the MRA's affiliation with Goodyear's leagues might have on current youth sports in the School District." (Id. ). When Doe discussed the possibility of going to the School Board, Estepp told him the Board "would not care." (Id. at #22).

Nonetheless, on October 24, 2019, Doe met with the Board's President and Vice President. (Id. at #24). The President and Vice President argued that the issue "was not a district matter" and denied knowing the reason for the ban; they also refused Doe's request for a hearing. (Id. ).

The next day, Doe emailed Goodyear, writing that "in the absence of any explanation as to what rules had been broken, the only reasonable conclusion was that the ban was in retaliation for [Doe's] October 2018 police report." (Id. at #25). In response, "Goodyear permanently suspended W.W. from all sports programs he manages." (Id. ).

After receiving notice that the ban had been extended to W.W. as well as himself, Doe contacted District and MRA officials to request a hearing. (Id. at #26). Doe states that the District never responded, although it is unclear as to whether he ever heard back from the MRA. (Id. ). When Doe attempted to enroll W.W. in a series of spring volleyball clinics, the MRA stated that W.W. could attend practice, but could not attend any activities (including games and tournaments) operated by CPYVL. (Id. ).

On September 2, 2020, Doe filed his Complaint (Doc. 1) in this case, asserting various claims against CPYVL, CPYVL Head Goodyear, the School District, District Superintendent Estepp, District Director of Administrative Services Hollander, the MRA, and MRA President Gregory Spreen.

On November 19, 2020, the School Defendants moved to dismiss all claims against them. These include claims against Estepp and Hollander for intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and violation of the Ohio Constitution, as well as claims against the School District for breach of contract, violation of the Ohio Constitution, violation of Title IX, and violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

B. The Facts Underlying Doe's Motion To Dismiss.

In addition to the School Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the League Defendants have also asserted counterclaims against Doe generally arising out of these same events. According to the League Defendants, when Doe signed W.W. up for the volleyball league, he (or his representative) electronically signed the CPYVL Parent/Spectator Code of Conduct (the "Code of Conduct"). By signing the Code of Conduct, Doe agreed, in pertinent part, "not [to] engage in physically or verbally abusive conduct. If I do, I will be subject to discipline up to a lifetime ban from all League games and activities." (Counterclaim, Doc. 13, #88). Moreover, the Code

584 F.Supp.3d 506

of Conduct also included an indemnification clause, in which Doe agreed to

indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the CPYVL (and its officers,

...