Jarzynka v. St. Thomas University of Law, 03-20652-CV-LENARD.
| Decision Date | 23 March 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-20652-CV-SIMONTON.,No. 03-20652-CV-LENARD.,03-20652-CV-LENARD.,03-20652-CV-SIMONTON. |
| Citation | 310 F.Supp.2d 1256 |
| Parties | Richard JARZYNKA, Plaintiff, v. ST. THOMAS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW; Dr. Elisabeth Ann Soifer; and St. Thomas University Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Richard Jarzynka, Pittsburgh, PA, pro se.
Adam D. Horowitz, Gilbride Heller & Brown, Miami, FL, Roberto Javier Diaz, J. Patrick Fitzgerald, P.A., Coral Gables, FL, for St. Thomas University School of Law, Elisabeth Ann Soifer, Dr., St. Thomas University, defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (D.E.13), filed on August 11, 2003. On August 28, 2003, Plaintiff Richard Jarzynka filed Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (D.E.20.) On September 9, 2003, Defendants St. Thomas University School of Law and Dr. Elisabeth Ann Soifer filed Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (D.E.23.) On September 11, 2003, Defendants filed Defendants' Supplemental Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (D.E.26.) On September 22, 2003, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice Regarding Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (D.E.27.) On December 22, 2003, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Supplemental Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (D.E.46.) Upon review of the motion, the response, the reply, the supplemental reply, the request for judicial notice, the supplemental response, and the record, the Court finds as follows.
The Plaintiff, Richard Jarzynka, was a law school student at St. Thomas University School of Law, beginning in August of 2000. (Am. Compl. at ¶ 20.) On March 23, 2001, Richard Jarzynka was expelled from the Law School program. (Id. at ¶ 22.) The letter of expulsion stated in pertinent part:
Dear Mr. Richard Jarzynka: The Law School and the University have become aware of serious threats you have made and physically intimidating conduct you have exhibited to members of the Law School Community. The fear you have instilled in these persons and the disruptive effects of your conduct on the educational process warrant your immediate expulsion from the University campus and the Law School program. Therefore, you are hereby expelled, effective immediately. (Am. Compl.; Ex. 5.)
Two weeks prior to the Plaintiff's expulsion, it was reported to St. Thomas University School of Law that the Plaintiff had threatened to blow-up the Legal Writing Office inside the Law School. (Am. Compl; Ex. B.) Also, three students approached Associate Dean Silver with reports of other threats and intimidating conduct on the part of Mr. Jarzynka. (Id.) University counselor Dr. Ann Soifer was requested by Dr. Sarah Shumate and Dean Silver to meet with the students who alleged that Mr. Jarzynka had made prior threats. (Id.) At that time, Dr. Ann Soifer stated that she had previously counseled Richard Jarzynka. (Id.) Dr. Ann Soifer then met with the three students for two hours, and reported to Dean Silver that Mr Jarzykna was the "most volatile and frightening student she had encountered." (Id.) She further stated that "he was decompensating quickly and posed a threat of serious harm." (Id.) Dean Silver told Dean Makdisi of Dr. Soifer's statements regarding the Plaintiff, leading to the decision to expel him. (Id.)
Richard Jarzynka denies ever threatening to harm any person or property of St. Thomas University or the Law School. (Am. Compl. at ¶ 23.) Plaintiff further avers that during the relevant time period, he was in a "normal, healthy, and stable state of mind." (Id. at ¶ 84.) He notes that he met with Dr. Soifer on February 5, 2001, for the purpose of renewing his prescription for medications, which he has taken since 1994 to treat bipolar disorder. (Id. at ¶ 65.) At that time, Dr. Soifer did not recommend any further counseling or evaluation for Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 66.) He has included a copy of her case notes which states that Mr. Jarzynka, "is doing well in law school" and that "he has learned the necessity of medication and is sensitive to changes within himself." (Id.; Ex. 3.) Mr. Jarzynka states that this was the only time he was personally evaluated by Dr. Soifer. (Id. at ¶ 68.)
Mr. Jarzynka was not provided any of the rights or protections afforded students to challenge disciplinary actions, as stated in the Law School Code of Academic Integrity. (Id. at ¶ 26.) Specifically, he was not told of any allegations against him until he received the expulsion letter dated March 23, 2001. (Id. at ¶ 24, 51-53.) An academic committee was never formed to investigate and consider the charges against him, as provided for in the Law School's Code. (Id. at ¶ 26.) Plaintiff was never provided the opportunity to attend a hearing on the accusations made against him, or to make a statement in his own defense. (Id. at ¶ 26, 46, 50.)
The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint states eleven (11) causes of actions including: Count 1, Breach of Contract against St. Thomas University School of Law; Count 2, Negligence against St. Thomas University School of Law; Count 3 and Count 6, Defamation against Dr. Soifer, who at all times acted as an agent of St. Thomas University; Count 4 and Count 7: Tortious Interference with a Contract against Dr. Soifer; Count 5 and Count 8: Negligence against Dr. Soifer, as an agent of St. Thomas University; Count 9: Punitive Damages against St. Thomas University School of Law; Count 10 and 11: Punitive Damages against Dr. Soifer.1
The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint states that as a result of the Defendants' acts or omissions, he has suffered substantial and permanent losses and damages, including but not limited to: loss of the benefit of a law school education, loss of the monetary value of the scholarship offered to Plaintiff by St. Thomas University, Inc., expenses incurred in traveling to the Law School and in attending the Law School, loss of future income as a lawyer, injury to Plaintiff's character and reputation, embarrassment and humiliation, and shock to his nervous system. (Am. Compl. at ¶ 61.)
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss argues first that the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (D.E.2) is asserted against non-existent entities. (Mot. to Dismiss at ¶ 4.) Neither "St. Thomas University" nor "St. Thomas University School of Law" are legal entities. (Id.) Instead, "St. Thomas University, Inc." is the real party in interest. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Defendant St. Thomas University, Inc. requests that the Court therefore dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule 10(a), which requires every complaint to state the names of the parties. (Reply at 2.)
The Plaintiff responds that his Amended Complaint describes Defendant "St. Thomas University" as a "private university incorporated in the State of Florida." (Resp. at 2.) The Plaintiff concludes therefore that St. Thomas University has been named as a Defendant in its corporate capacity, St. Thomas University, Inc. (Id.) The Plaintiff also argues that "St. Thomas School of Law" is a legal entity capable of being sued. (Resp. at 13-14; see also D.E. 46, Plaintiff's Supplemental Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.)
Defendants also argue that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint improperly incorporates allegations into counts that have no relevance to the claim raised. (Mot. to Dismiss at 12.) As a result the Amended Complaint is defective and should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(e). (Id.) The Plaintiff denies that he improperly incorporated allegations into counts that have no relevance to the claims raised. (Resp. at 15.) The Plaintiff further states that if his Complaint was so vague that it was impossible to comprehend the claims asserted than the Defendants would not have been able to "so skillfully craft their Motion to Dismiss." (Id.) He therefore concludes that any motion by the Defendants for a more definite statement of his claims, pursuant to Federal Rule 12(e), is moot. (Id.)
The Defendants argue, pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6), that Plaintiff's negligence claim should be dismissed. The Defendants state that it is well established in Florida that a university is not liable in negligence for its academic and disciplinary decisions. (Mot. to Dismiss at 3.) Similarly, private universities do not owe a duty of reasonable care in academic and disciplinary matters. (Id. at 4-5.) A mere mistaken decision by the Defendants regarding the Plaintiff is not enough for the Plaintiff to proceed under Florida law. (Id. at 3-4.) The Plaintiff must instead allege that the university acted arbitrarily and for fraudulent purposes in order to state a claim. (Id.) The Defendants therefore request that the Court dismiss Counts 2, 5 and 8 respectively as the Plaintiff's negligence claims are not cognizable under Florida law. (Id at 3-4.)
In addition, the Defendants argue that the economic loss rule bars Plaintiff's negligence claims. (Id. at 5.) The Defendants contend that under Florida law, the economic loss rule bars a cause of action in tort between parties to a contract unless the tort action is distinguishable from or independent of the alleged breach of contract. (Id.)
The Plaintiff responds first that his negligence claim is not based on the University's decision to expel him, but instead on the "false statements made about the Plaintiff by Dr. Soifer." (Resp. at 4, 6.) Plaintiff cites to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDowell v. Gonzalez
...facto counsel for a party and cannot rewrite a deficient pleading for the sake of sustaining an action. Jarzynka v. St. Thomas Univ. of Law , 310 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1264 (S.D. Fla. 2004). The Court cannot simply "fill in the blanks" to infer a claim, Brinson v. Colon , 2012 WL 1028878, at *1......
-
Navarro v. City of Riviera Beach
...all pleadings submitted by Mr. Navarro, as the law dictates is appropriate for pro se litigants. See Jarzynka v. St. Thomas Univ. of Law , 310 F.Supp.2d 1256, 1264 (S.D.Fla.2004) ("A pro se litigant's pleadings must be construed more liberally than those pleadings drafted by attorneys."); A......
-
Pyatt v. Fla. Int'l Univ. Bd. of Trs.
...facto counsel for a party and cannot rewrite a deficient pleading for the sake of sustaining an action. Jarzynka v. St. Thomas Univ. of Law, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1264 (S.D. Fla. 2004). The Court cannot simply "fill in the blanks" to infer a claim, Brinson v. Colon, 2012 WL 1028878, at *1 (......
-
Watkins v. Bigwood
...facto counsel for a party and cannot rewrite a deficient pleading for the sake of sustaining an action. Jarzynka v. St. Thomas Univ. of Law, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1264 (S.D. Fla. 2004). The Court cannot simply "fill in the blanks" to infer a claim, Brinson v. Colon, 2012 WL 1028878, at *1 (......
-
Enforcement of Law Schools' Non-academic Honor Codes: a Necessary Step Towards Professionalism?
...and U.L. 261, 266-68 (1994) (discussing the doctrine of in loco parentis). 25. See, e.g., Jarzynka v. St. Thomas Univ. Sch. of Law, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1269 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (holding that under Florida law a private university may prescribe rules of conduct and students who enroll in the ......
-
Substance & Style
...Similarly, Fed. R. App. P. 28(a) requires only that the statement be "concise." [6] See Jarzyrika v. St. Thomas Univ. of Law, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 126465 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (motion to dismiss not required to be presented in numbered paragraphs); Compass Bank v. Veytia, No. EP-11-CV-228-PRM, ......