Longo v. Aspinwall

Decision Date08 December 2020
Docket Number1:20 CV 182 MR WCM
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
PartiesJENNIFER LONGO, Plaintiff, v. ELIZABETH ASPINWALL, individually and in her official capacity as an employee of Western Carolina University, and WESTERN CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 5), which has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.

I. Procedural Background

On June 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in the Superior Court of Jackson County, North Carolina. Doc. 1-1.1

Defendants removed the case on July 8, 2020 (Doc. 1) and subsequentlyfiled their Motion to Dismiss and a supporting brief. Docs. 5 & 6. Plaintiff has responded and Defendants have replied. Docs. 7, 8 & 9.

II. Summary of Plaintiff's Allegations

As discussed in greater detail below, inconsistencies exist in Plaintiff's allegations. Nonetheless, she alleges, in summary, as follows:

Plaintiff Jennifer Longo ("Plaintiff") first attended Defendant Western Carolina University ("WCU") for her undergraduate education; she began in the Fall of 2012 and graduated in the Spring of 2016. Doc. 1-1 at ¶ 13. During her undergraduate years, Plaintiff was diagnosed with an eating disorder by a doctor at WCU's Health Center and began receiving counseling and psychological treatment at the Health Center. Id. at ¶ 14. In addition, in April 2016, Plaintiff was diagnosed with major depressive disorder. Id. at ¶ 15.

Plaintiff began the Doctor of Physical Therapy Program ("DPT Program" or "Program") at WCU in August 2016. Id. at ¶ 16. That Fall, Plaintiff met with Dr. Lunnen, the Program's department head, and discussed her diagnosis and issues with depression and anxiety. Id. at ¶ 17.

In October 2016, Plaintiff began attending counseling and receiving psychological services at the WCU Health Center. Id. at ¶ 18.

Plaintiff began the Spring 2017 semester but decided to "take medical withdrawal due to her depression and anxiety." Id. at ¶ 20. Before withdrawing, Plaintiff met with the interim department head, Dr. Carzoli, todiscuss her reasons for doing so. Id. At the time she withdrew, Plaintiff was in good academic standing. Id.

After withdrawing from WCU, Plaintiff attended a one-month outpatient program at a hospital in Virginia, where she was sexually assaulted. Id.

Plaintiff returned to Cullowhee, North Carolina in February 2017, and was prescribed medications for sleep disorder and major depressive disorder. Id. at ¶ 21.

Plaintiff then attended an inpatient treatment program in Florida from May 2017 until September 2017. Id. at ¶ 22

Plaintiff resumed the DPT Program at WCU in January 2018. Id. at ¶ 23. However, she was sexually assaulted in Asheville during January or February 2018.2 Id.

In February 2018, Plaintiff met with the head of the DPT Program, Dr. David Hudson. Id. at ¶ 24. During that meeting, Dr. Hudson mentioned the Program's essential functions requirements and informed Plaintiff that she had to meet those requirements, even though Plaintiff was in good academic standing. Id. Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief that Dr. Hudson and other faculty members in the Program had received information regarding Plaintiff's mental disability and issues with depression and anxiety. Id.Plaintiff also alleges upon information and belief that there had been no major complaints from faculty or other students about her behavior or demeanor. Id.

Plaintiff further alleges that, later that Spring, she was involuntarily committed by her father, terminated from the DPT Program, and subjected to a second involuntary commitment as the result of a petition filed by Defendant Aspinwall, who was employed by WCU. Id. at ¶¶ 26, 31, 33, 34.

III. Discussion

In a motion made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the central issue is whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief. See Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 189 (4th Cir. 2009). In that context, the court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir. 2009); Giacomelli, 588 F.3d at 192.

Here, however, an analysis of Plaintiff's Complaint is problematic because the Complaint contains material factual allegations that are internally inconsistent.

Plaintiff alleges that on March 1, 2018, she "was involuntarily committed by her father and stayed for three (3) days at Harris Regional Hospital in Sylva, North Carolina and a further three (3) days at Haywood Regional Medical Center in Waynesville, North Carolina causing Plaintiff to miss a week of classes, labs, and mid-term examinations." Doc. 1 - 1 at ¶ 26. She goeson to allege that she made up her missed mid-term examinations and made good grades on those tests. Id. at ¶ 28. Plaintiff alleges that at this point WCU had notice of her disabilities. Id. at ¶ 30.

Plaintiff then alleges that she received a letter from the Department Head of Physical Therapy dismissing her from the DPT Program and that at the time she was compliant with her outpatient mental health requirements "and in good academic standing as she had just completed her mid-term exams...." Id. At ¶ 31. She also alleges that, the same day she was dismissed from the Program, "and after said dismissal," Aspinwall filed a petition to have Plaintiff involuntarily committed. Id. at ¶ 33. Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief that "Aspinwall filed said involuntary commitment without alleging any additional facts that postdated the first involuntary commitment filed by Plaintiff's father." Id. Plaintiff alleges that after Aspinwall filed the second involuntary commitment, Plaintiff was taken to Raleigh, North Carolina for approximately one week before the commitment expired and she was released. Id. at ¶ 34.

These allegations indicate Plaintiff contends that her dismissal from the Program and second involuntary commitment (as a result of a petition filed by Aspinwall) occurred at a separate and later time than her first involuntary commitment (which resulted from a petition filed by Plaintiff's father). See also Plaintiff's Memorandum, Doc. 8 at 2 ("Plaintiff was involuntarily committedby her father causing Plaintiff to miss classes and exams in Spring of 2018. Later in the Spring 2018 Semester Plaintiff was dismissed from the Program.") (emphasis added).

Such allegations, however, are directly contradicted by other allegations and information in the record.3

Plaintiff's Complaint states specifically that Plaintiff was involuntarily committed by her father on March 1, 2018, and that, on March 2, 2018, she received a letter from David Hudson, Professor and Department Head of Physical Therapy, dismissing her from the Program. Id. at ¶¶ 26, 31. The letter itself, which appears as Exhibit A to Plaintiff's Complaint, is dated March 2, 2018, and shows that it was hand-delivered to Plaintiff.

Further, the Findings and Custody Order attached as Exhibit 1 to Defendants' filings was signed by a Jackson County magistrate at 9:37 AM on March 2, 2018. Doc. 6-1. While that document itself does not indicate whether it was issued pursuant to a petition submitted by Aspinwall (as opposed to by Plaintiff's father), the dating is consistent with Plaintiff's allegation thatAspinwall filed a petition "the same day Plaintiff was dismissed from the DPT Program." In other words, this information indicates that Plaintiff's dismissal from the Program and the filing of Aspinwall's petition occurred immediately after the involuntary commitment by Plaintiff's father.

These scenarios appear to be directly contradictory. It is not clear how Plaintiff could have been involuntarily committed for six days in Sylva and Waynesville beginning on March 1, 2018, been released from that commitment, taken several mid-term exams, and then been available to receive her dismissal letter and be subject to a second involuntary commitment by Aspinwall on March 2, 2018.

As noted above, a plaintiff's factual allegations must be taken as true and considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff at the motion to dismiss stage. However, here, Plaintiff's allegations are in direct conflict, and these inconsistencies pertain to material issues that impact an analysis of the sufficiency of Plaintiff's claims.4

Under these circumstances, the undersigned is reluctant to attempt to determine which construction of the facts would be most favorable to each of Plaintiff's claims and consequently will recommend that Defendant's' Motion to Dismiss be denied without prejudice and that Plaintiff be directed to file an amended complaint addressing these issues.5

IV. Recommendation

For the reasons stated, the undersigned RECOMMENDS:

1. That Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and
2. That Plaintiff be DIRECTED to file an amended complaint promptly.
Signed: December 8, 2020

/s/_________

W. Carleton Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Time for Objections

The parties are hereby advised that, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), written objections to the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation contained herein must be filed within fourteen (14) days of service of same. Responses to the objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of service of the objections. Failure to file objections to this Memorandum and Recommendation with the presiding District Judge will preclude the parties from raising such objections on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 140 (1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984).

1. Plaintiff previously filed a similar case which was dismissed without...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT