Ramser v. Laielli

• Decision Date: 04 August 2017
• Docket Number: Case No.: 15–CV–2018–CAB–DHB
• Citation: 276 F.Supp.3d 978
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
• Parties: Nicole RAMSER, Plaintiff, v. Ricky LAIELLI; University of San Diego, a California corporation; and Does 1–20, Defendants.

276 F.Supp.3d 978

Nicole RAMSER, Plaintiff,

v.Ricky LAIELLI; University of San Diego, a California corporation; and Does 1–20, Defendants.

Case No.: 15–CV–2018–CAB–DHB

United States District Court, S.D. California.

Signed August 4, 2017

Carla Dimare, Law Office of Carla Dimare, P.C., Rancho Santa Fe, CA, Daniel Mark Gilleon, Samuel Clemens, The Gilleon Law Firm, James C. Mitchell, Mitchell and Gilleon, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff.

Joanne Alnajjar Buser, Michael Cody Sullivan, Matthew R. Jedreski, Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendants.

Ricky Laielli, San Diego, CA, pro se.

ORDER GRANTING UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo, United States District Judge

This matter is before this Court the motion for summary judgment of Defendant University of San Diego ("USD"). The motion has been fully briefed, and the Court held oral argument on August 3, 2017. For the following reasons, the motion is granted.

I. General Background

This case is about USD's handling of Plaintiff's claim that she was raped by fellow USD student Ricky Laielli in the early morning hours of February 9, 2014, in Plaintiff's dormitory room. It is not a case about whether USD created an environment on campus that led to the alleged rape, or about whether USD is liable for the alleged rape itself. As such, details and disputes about what actually happened between Plaintiff and Laielli in Plaintiff's dorm room shortly after midnight on February 9, 2014, are largely irrelevant to the instant motion. What is relevant, and the primary issue raised in USD's motion for summary judgment, is whether USD was "deliberately indifferent" to Plaintiff's report that Laielli sexually assaulted her. As such, the relevant issues include when USD had actual notice of the assault and the actions it took in response. The material facts relevant to these questions are largely undisputed, but to the extent there is a dispute, the Court construes the evidence in favor of Plaintiff.

A. USD Policy For Responding to Violent Crimes

In 1999, USD and the San Diego Police Department (SDPD) agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding (the "1999 MOU") regarding crime reporting and criminal investigation responsibilities between SDPD and USD's Department of Public Safety (DPS). [Doc. No. 87–1 at 676.] The MOU stated that "SDPD will be the primary reporting and investigating agency for ALL violent crimes" including forcible rape. [Id. ] In 2013, USD, SDPD, and Center for Community Solutions (CCS)¹ entered into a second MOU (the "2013 MOU") to "clearly articulate[ ] the responsibility and process through which [DPS] reports all felonious activity on campus, including incidents of sexual assault...." [Id. at 682.] The 2013 MOU recognized that USD CARE advocates would act as first responders to victims of sexual violence and that SDPD would engage with complainants once a report is made. [Id. ] The 2013 MOU was signed by the San Diego Chief of Police. [Id. at 683.]

B. The Assault

On the night of February 8, 2014, Plaintiff, her roommates, the boyfriend of one of her roommates, and Defendant Ricky Laielli were drinking and socializing in Plaintiff's dorm room on the USD campus. Sometime around midnight the others left or went to bed, leaving Plaintiff and Laielli in the living room. Around this time, Plaintiff drank part of a mimosa Laielli made for her and shortly thereafter began to feel nauseous and dizzy. Plaintiff believes that she felt this way because Laielli put a drug into the mimosa. According to Plaintiff, while they were alone Laielli raped her.

C. Plaintiff Reports the Assault to USD Security

At approximately 1:45 a.m., Plaintiff left the dormitory and called her friend Samantha Laplante to pick her up. [Doc. No. 87–1 at 53; Doc. No. 91–2 at 61–63.]² Laplante, accompanied by her friend Jennifer Goldman, took Plaintiff to the nearby Manchester Village parking garage where she located DPS officer Matthew Skillings. [Doc. No. 87–1 at 53, 86; Doc. No. 91–2 at 64–70.] Laplante testified that she told Skillings that Plaintiff "had said some guy had drugged her and was trying to have sex with her." [Doc. No. 87–1 at 328.] Plaintiff testified that she told Skillings she had been raped at this point. [Doc. No. 87–1 at 53–54; Doc. No. 91–9 ¶ 11.] Plaintiff, Laplante, and Goldman all state that Plaintiff asked Skillings to call the police. [Doc. No. 87–1 at 53–54, 330; Doc. No. 91–8 ¶ 5.] Plaintiff and Goldman state that Skillings initially responded by attempting to dissuade her from involving the police. [Doc. No. 87–1 at 599; Doc. No. 91–8 ¶ 5; Doc. No. 91–9 ¶ 11.] Skillings then called paramedics and contacted USD Community Director Jennifer Lee. [Doc. No. 87–1 at 90–91, 365–66; Doc. No. 87–11 at 9.]

Lee soon arrived at the scene and spoke to both Laplante and Plaintiff. Laplante told Lee that Plaintiff believed she had been drugged and that a guy was trying to have sex with her. [Doc. No. 87–1 at 329, 367.] Lee then asked Plaintiff if "something more" may have happened, and Plaintiff responded by nodding. [Id. at 368.] This conversation ended because the paramedics began putting Plaintiff on a stretcher. [Id. ] Lee then asked DPS to contact a CARE³ advocate. [Id. at 369–70.]

D. DPS Goes to Plaintiff's Dormitory Room

DPS officer Jason Baker arrived at the Manchester Village parking garage around 1:55 a.m. Once there, he learned that Plaintiff's friend (Laplante) had said that she thought Plaintiff had been drugged. [Doc. No. 91–3 at 61, 86–89.] Baker then went to Plaintiff's dorm to see if he could identify what she had ingested. [Id. at 61–64.] Baker was not yet aware of Plaintiff's claim that she had been raped. [Id. 61–64, 81–82] After knocking on Plaintiff's dormitory door and getting no response, Baker let himself in using his security key. [Id. at 66.]

Inside, Baker found alcohol bottles on the table and the TV on. [Id. at 66.] He announced his presence loudly and eventually Plaintiff's roommate Audrey Jarvis emerged from her bedroom. [Id. at 69–71.] Baker then found Laielli naked and asleep in Plaintiff's bedroom. [Id. at 72–74.] Jarvis brought Laielli his clothes from the living room, and Laielli got dressed in Plaintiff's bedroom. After dressing

, Laielli identified himself and explained to Baker what Plaintiff had to drink that night. [Id. at 75–77.] The only questions Baker recalls asking either Jarvis or Laielli were about what Plaintiff had ingested that evening. [Id. at 81.]

After approximately thirty minutes, Skillings and Lee arrived at the dormitory. [Id. at 83; Doc. No. 87–1 at 97.] Skillings asked Laielli if he and Plaintiff had consensual sex that night, and Laielli said yes. [Doc. No. 87–1 at 102–03; Doc. No. 91–3 at 90.] Baker took some photos of the living room and kitchen [Doc. No. 87–1 at 357–59; Doc. No. 87–11 at 27–32], but he did not preserve any of the alcohol or drink cups and glasses at the scene. [Doc. No. 91–3 at 87.] Nor did he cordon off the scene or take official statements from any of the residents or Laielli. [Id. at 93–95.] Skillings had Laielli gather his things and gave him a ride to his residence off campus. [Doc. No. 87–1 at 104, 306.]

E. Plaintiff Requests and Receives a SART Exam

In the ambulance on the way to the hospital, Plaintiff became upset and said she was raped. [Id. at 106.] At the hospital, Plaintiff spoke to Magdalene Wilhelm, the CARE advocate Lee had called, who reviewed the CARE process and completed a CARE report. [Id. at 395–96; Doc. No. 91–5 at 13–14.] Plaintiff and Goldman state Wilhelm attempted to dissuade Plaintiff from contacting the police. [Doc. No. 91–8 ¶ 7; Doc. No. 91–9 ¶ 14.] After learning that Plaintiff decided to have a Sexual Assault Response Team ("SART") exam, Skillings asked his dispatcher to have an SDPD officer meet him at the hospital. [Doc. No. 87–1 at 108, 398–99; Doc. No. 91–2 at 92.] SDPD Officer Joseph Nunez arrived at the hospital at approximately 5:19 a.m. [Doc. No. 87–1 at 420–21.] SDPD did not conduct any investigation at Plaintiff's dorm room that night. [Doc. No. 91–5 at 26, 28–29, 32.]

F. USD's Actions In Response to Plaintiff's Report

1. The CIRT Meeting

USD Assistant Vice President of Student Wellness Moises Baron scheduled a Critical Incident Response Team ("CIRT") meeting for Monday, February 10th. [Doc. No. 87–1 at 213–14.] That CIRT meeting recapped the events of Saturday night and Sunday morning and discussed some of the issues that might arise as a consequence. [Id. at 221–23.]

2. No Contact Letters

After the CIRT meeting, USD Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students Donald Goodwin issued no contact letters to Plaintiff, Laielli, Laplante, and Plaintiff's roommates. [Doc. No. 87–10 at 2–3, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 25.] Plaintiff was prohibited from contacting Laielli and prohibited from speaking with Laplante and her roommates about the case. [Id. at 14, 16, 18, 20.] Laielli initially was only prohibited from speaking to Plaintiff. [Id. at 22.] One day later, the no contact order was expanded to prohibit Laielli from being on campus except to attend classes. See [Id. at 25.] A couple days after that, USD Associate Vice President, Chief Human Resources Officer, and then–Interim Title IX Coordinator Karen Briggs told Laielli he was allowed to be on campus for class projects and to be in open study spaces during breaks between classes. [Doc. No. 91–4 at 50.]

3. Change in Housing

The CIRT meeting discussed whether the university would need to address a possible change in housing for Plaintiff. [Doc. No. 87–1 at 222.] Dayanne Izmirian, USD Director of Residential Life, then contacted Plaintiff on February 10th and worked with Plaintiff and her mother from February 11 to 14 to locate a new residence for Plaintiff. [Doc. No. 87–1 at 13–15, 22–27, 31–34; Doc. No. 87–12 at ¶¶ 5–8.] Plaintiff states that the first locations presented as options "were not really viable options," either because the existing tenant in the unit...