Doe v. Varsity Brands LLC
| Docket Number | C.A. 6:22-2957-HMH,6:22-3508-HMH,6:22-3509-HMH,6:22-3510-HMH |
| Decision Date | 11 September 2023 |
| Parties | Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5, Jane Doe 6, Jane Doe 7, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, and John and Jane Does 1-100, Plaintiffs, v. Varsity Brands, LLC; Varsity Spirit, LLC; Varsity Brands Holding Company, Inc.; U.S. All Star Federation; Jeff Webb; Rockstar Cheer & Dance, Inc.; Katherine Anne Foster, as the personal representative of the Estate of Scott Foster; Kathy Foster, individually; Kenny Feeley; Josh Guyton; Nathan Allan Plank; Christopher Hinton; Tracy a/k/a or f/k/a Traevon Black; Peter Holley; and other Unknown Defendants, Jane Doe 8, Plaintiff, v. Varsity Brands, LLC; Varsity Spirit, LLC; Varsity Brands Holding Company, Inc.; U.S. All Star Federation, Inc. d/b/a U.S. All Star Federation; Jeff Webb, individually; Rockstar Cheer & Dance, Inc.; Katherine Anne Foster, as the personal representative of the Estate of Scott Foster; Kathy Foster, individually; Josh Guyton; Christopher Hinton; Traevon Black a/k/a Trey Black n/k/a Tracey Black; and other unknown defendants, Defendants. Jane Doe 9, Plaintiffs, v. Varsity Brands, LLC; Varsity Spirit, LLC; Varsity Brands Holding Company, Inc.; Jeff Webb, individually; Rockstar Cheer Dance, Inc.; Katherine Anne Foster, as the personal representative of the Estate Scott Foster; Kathy Foster, individually; Josh Guyton; Traevon Black a/k/a Trey Black n/k/a Tracey Black; and other unknown defendants, Defendants. John Doe 3, Plaintiffs, v. Varsity Brands, LLC; Varsity Spirit, LLC; Varsity Brands Holding Company, Inc.; Jeff Webb, individually; Rockstar Cheer & Dance, Inc.; Katherine Anne Foster, as the personal representative of the Estate of Scott Foster; Kathy Foster; Traevon Black a/k/a Trey Black n/k/a Tracey Black; Jarred Carruba; and other unknown defendants, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
Before the court are Defendants Rockstar Cheer & Dance, Inc. (“Rockstar”) and Kathy Foster's motions for partial dismissal or for partial judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(c). For the reasons below, the court grants Defendants' motions in their entirety.
Plaintiffs in these four consolidated actions are former youth cheerleaders who allege that they were sexually abused by coaches employed by Rockstar, a now-closed South Carolina gym that was owned and operated by Kathy Foster and her late husband, Defendant Scott Foster. Background on the competitive cheerleading industry and Plaintiffs' allegations of abuse is set forth in the court's earlier orders. Doe 1 v. Varsity Brands, LLC, No 6:22-2957-HMH, 2023 WL 4088483, at *1-5 (D.S.C. June 20 2023); Doe 8 v. Varsity Brands, LLC, No. 6:22-3508-HMH, 2023 WL 4088326, at *3 (D.S.C. June 20, 2023); Doe 9 v. Varsity Brands, LLC, No. 6:22-3509-HMH, 2023 WL 4088098, at *3 (D.S.C. June 20, 2023); Doe 3 v. Varsity Brands, LLC, No. 6:22-3510-HMH, 2023 WL 4088327, at *3 (D.S.C. June 20, 2023).
All twelve Plaintiffs assert claims against Rockstar and Kathy Foster for gross negligence, negligent supervision, civil conspiracy, and for violations of the Child Abuse Victims' Rights Act of 1986 (“CAVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2255; the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d); and the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (“SCUTPA”), SC Code Ann. § 39-5-20. Plaintiffs also assert claims against Rockstar for assault, battery, unjust enrichment, fraud, and negligent security.
On August 15, 2023, Rockstar and Kathy Foster filed the instant motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' CAVRA, RICO, SCUTPA, assault, battery, fraud, and civil conspiracy claims. (Rockstar & Kathy Foster Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 253 (2957 case); ECF No. 172 (3508 case); ECF No. 155 (3509 case); ECF No. 164 (3510 case).) Plaintiffs responded in opposition on August 29, 2023. (Resp. Opp'n Rockstar & Kathy Foster Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 262 (2957 case); ECF No. 181 (3508 case); ECF No. 164 (3509 case); ECF No. 171 (3510 case).) Rockstar and Kathy Foster filed their replies on September 5, 2023. (Rockstar & Kathy Foster Reply, ECF No. 266 (2957 case); ECF No. 185 (3508 case); ECF No. 168 (3509 case); ECF No. 175 (3510 case).) This matter is now ripe for consideration.[1]
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a party to move to dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). This plausibility standard is met “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “‘[D]etailed factual allegations'” are not required, but the plaintiff must present “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In reviewing the complaint, the court “must accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Rockville Cars, LLC v. City of Rockville, 891 F.3d 141, 145 (4th Cir. 2018).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) allows a party to move for judgment on the pleadings “[a]fter the pleadings are closed - but early enough not to delay trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). The court assesses a motion for judgment on the pleadings “under the same standards as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” Columbia v. Haley, 738 F.3d 107, 115 (4th Cir. 2013).
As an initial matter, Plaintiffs have consented to the dismissal of their RICO, SCUTPA, fraud, and civil conspiracy claims against Rockstar and Kathy Foster. (Resp. Opp'n Rockstar & Kathy Foster Mot. Dismiss 9, ECF No. 262 (2957 case).) Thus, the court will address only Plaintiffs' CAVRA, assault, and battery claims.
Section 2255 provides a private cause of action for “[a]ny person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of [18 U.S.C. §§] 1589, 1590, 1591, 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 . . . and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation ....” 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Plaintiffs' pleadings cite §§ 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, and 2423[2]as predicate offenses. (2957 Am. Compl. ¶ 346, ECF No. 8); (3508 Compl. ¶ 237, ECF No. 1); (3509 Compl. ¶ 237, ECF No. 1); (3510 Compl. ¶ 230, ECF No. 1.) Now, in opposing Kathy Foster and Rockstar's motions, Plaintiffs address only §§ 2422(a), 2423(a), and 1591. As explained below, Plaintiffs' § 2255 claims fail for several reasons.
To begin, Plaintiffs may not rely on § 1591 as a predicate offense because that statute is not mentioned in the four complaints.[3]See, e.g., Equity in Athletics, Inc. v. Dep't of Educ., 504 F.Supp.2d 88, 111 (W.D. Va. 2007) (); K.D. v. White Plains Sch. Dist., 921 F.Supp.2d 197, 209 n.8 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (); Anderson v. Aset Corp., 329 F.Supp.2d 380, 383 (W.D.N.Y. 2004) (); Williams v. Spencer, 883 F.Supp.2d 165, 181 n.8 (D.D.C. 2012) (). In addition, two of the Plaintiffs - Jane Does 4 and 6 - cannot bring a CAVRA claim because both were over eighteen years old when the alleged abuse occurred. (2957 Am. Compl. ¶¶ 282, 306, ECF No. 8); 18 U.S.C. § 2256(1) (). As for the remaining ten Plaintiffs, the court finds that none has a stated a plausible violation of §§ 2422(a) or 2423(a).
Section 2422(a) makes it illegal to “knowingly persuade[], induce[], entice[], or coerce[] any individual to travel in interstate . . . commerce . . . to engage in . . . any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempt[] to do so.” 18 U.S.C. § 2242(a). Section 2423(a), meanwhile, makes it an offense to “knowingly transport[] an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate . . . commerce . . . with intent that the individual engage in . . . any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a).
John Does 2 and 3 and Jane Does 5, 7, and 8 have not sufficiently alleged a § 2422(a) or § 2423(a) violation because, on the facts alleged, these Plaintiffs were not subjected to illegal sexual conduct after crossing state lines. (2957 Am. Compl. ¶¶ 228-43, 299-305, 317-38, ECF No. 8) (describing alleged sexual abuse and illegal sexual activity that took place wholly in South Carolina); (3508 Compl. ¶¶ 214-29, ECF No. 1) (same); (3510 Compl. ¶¶ 209-22, ECF No. 1) (same); see United States v. Powell, No. 04 CR 885, 2006 WL 1155947, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 28, 2006) (unpublished) ().
The five remaining Plaintiffs - John Doe 1 and Jane Does 1, 2, 3 and 9 - have not stated a plausible CAVRA claim based on a violation of § 2422(a) or § 2423(a) because there...
To continue reading
Request your trial