Rouse v. Duke Univ.

• Decision Date: 05 April 2012
• Docket Number: No. 1:11–cv–549.,1:11–cv–549.
• Citation: 869 F.Supp.2d 674
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
• Parties: Katherine ROUSE, Plaintiff, v. DUKE UNIVERSITY and Larry Moneta, Defendants.

869 F.Supp.2d 674

Katherine ROUSE, Plaintiff,

v.DUKE UNIVERSITY and Larry Moneta, Defendants.

No. 1:11–cv–549.

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina.

April 5, 2012.

Robert C. Ekstrand, Stefanie Anne Sparks, Ekstrand & Ekstrand, LLP, Durham, NC, for Plaintiff.

Paul K. Sun, Jr., James M. Weiss, Ellis & Winters, LLP, Raleigh, NC, Dixie Thomas Wells, Ellis & Winters, LLP, Greensboro, NC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

CATHERINE C. EAGLES, District Judge.

The Plaintiff, Katherine Rouse, filed suit in state court against Defendants Duke University and Dr. Larry Moneta alleging negligence, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, creation and maintenance of a hostile educational environment, and breach of contract. The Defendants filed a Motion pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, contending that Ms. Rouse's action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations and that she has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. The Court finds that the Motion should be denied in part and granted in part.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In evaluating a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court must view the facts presented in the pleadings and the inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243–44 (4th Cir.1999). A Rule 12(c) motion is evaluated under the same standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Walker v. Kelly, 589 F.3d 127, 139 (4th Cir.2009); Tiepet, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., No. 1:02CV00722, 2003 WL 21981029, at *1, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14425, at *1–2 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 15, 2003). Thus, to survive a motion at this stage, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true and viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The factual recitation which follows is thus taken from the Amended Complaint.

Ms. Rouse was a freshman at Duke University when, on February 11, 2007, she was raped at a party. (Doc. 5 at 2 ¶ 9.) She immediately reported the rape to the authorities and was treated at the emergency room. ( Id. at 3 ¶ 11.) Shortly thereafter, Defendant Dr. Moneta issued a public statement “downplay [ing] [the] allegation of rape” and suggested that Ms. Rouse was to blame for her own rape. (Id. ¶ 12.) This interview was broadcast nationwide with numerous follow-up media reports repeating Dr. Moneta's false implied statements. ( Id. ¶¶ 13–14.)

Ms. Rouse alleges that Dr. Moneta made these statements despite physical evidence supporting her allegations of rape. (Id. ¶ 11.) Ms. Rouse alleges that Duke University and Dr. Moneta were motivated to discredit her because she was a white woman accusing an African–American man of rape at a time when there was significant negative publicity over Duke's handling of an earlier rape allegation by an African–American woman against several white Duke lacrosse team members. (Id. ¶ 13.) She contends that Dr. Moneta's statements were the start of a hostile educational environment against her that was maintained by the University until her involuntary withdrawal. ( Id. passim.)

After the rape, Ms. Rouse received a temporary leave from school to obtain medical and psychological treatment at home resulting from the rape and from the defamatory public statements of Dr. Moneta. ( Id. at 4 ¶ 17.) When she returned to school a week later, she found the administration at Duke unsupportive of her effort to return to school ( id. ¶¶ 19–20), and the University continued to foster a hostile educational environment against her in unspecified ways. At her request, Duke granted her a leave of absence, but refused to allow her to complete her current course work from home. ( Id. at 4–5 ¶ 23.)

While on her leave of absence, Ms. Rouse received additional medical and psychological services at home ( id. at 5 ¶ 26) and was able to return to Duke in the fall of 2007. ( Id. ¶ 28.) In the interim, Duke did not investigate, sanction, or punish the fraternity or its members who hosted the party during which Ms. Rouse was raped. ( Id. ¶ 25.)

After returning to school in the fall of 2007, Ms. Rouse found that the educational environment at Duke was still hostile to her. ( Id. ¶ 29.) She was not allowed to register for the courses she wished to take in the 2008 spring semester and found that Duke had done nothing to alleviate the hostile educational environment she faced. ( Id. ¶¶ 29–30.) On November 8, 2007, Ms. Rouse met with Dean McKay to discuss the stress she was under as a result of the hostile educational environment. ( Id. ¶ 32.) She inquired about taking courses at another university during the spring semester and then returning to Duke in the fall when perhaps time and distance would make the situation more tolerable. ( Id.) Dean McKay did not propose any action to ameliorate the hostile environment, but instead encouraged Ms. Rouse to leave school. ( Id. ¶ 33.) Dean McKay directed her to send an e-mail stating her intention to transfer to another university. ( Id.)

At Dean McKay's request, Ms. Rouse sent an e-mail stating the intent to transfer to Fordham University to take classes for the spring semester. ( Id. ¶ 34.) Ms. Rouse did not intend to transfer permanently and did not know that her e-mail would have any effect on her eligibility to return to Duke in the fall. ( Id. ¶¶ 35, 37.)

After Ms. Rouse completed her coursework for the fall semester, she received a letter dated December 18, 2007, from Duke notifying her that her e-mail functioned as a request to voluntarily withdraw from Duke to complete her undergraduate degree elsewhere and that she had therefore forfeited her eligibility to seek readmission to Duke University. ( Id. ¶ 36.) Permanent withdrawal from the University was not what Ms. Rouse sought or wanted. ( Id. ¶ ¶ 37, 38; id. at 12 ¶ 69.)

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

On December 17, 2010, Ms. Rouse filed a request to extend time to serve a complaint. This lawsuit was filed on January 5, 2011, and an Amended Complaint was filed on June 13, 2011.¹ In the Amended Complaint, Ms. Rouse asserts causes of action against Dr. Moneta and Duke for negligence ( id. at 8–9 ¶¶ 48–52), negligent infliction of emotional distress ( id. at 12–13 ¶¶ 67–70), and intentional infliction of emotional distress ( id. at 13–14 ¶¶ 71–77). Ms. Rouse also asserts causes of action against Duke for creating and then fostering a hostile educational environment because of her race and gender ( id. 9–10 ¶¶ 53–57) and for breach of contract. ( Id. at 10–12 ¶¶ 58–66.)

At the close of the pleadings, the Defendants filed the instant Motion asserting that all of Ms. Rouse's claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation and that the Amended Complaint fails to state any claims for which relief may be granted.

ANALYSIS

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly allow defendants to raise a “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” defense in a Rule 12(c) motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(2)(B). Courts also routinely and appropriately dispose of cases on statute-of-limitations grounds at the Rule 12(c) stage when the pleadings themselves contain sufficient information to make a ruling. See, e.g., West v. ITT Cont'l Baking Co., 683 F.2d 845, 846 (4th Cir.1982) (affirming dismissal of case on Rule 12(c) motion when “the facts alleged” showed it was barred by the statute-of-limitations ground); Jones v. GE Life & Annuity Assurance Co., No. 1:03CV241, 2004 WL 691749, at *1, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5297, at *5 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 17, 2004) (ruling on statute-of-limitations grounds where the “pleadings establish” that Plaintiff's claim “is barred by the applicable limitations”); see also Tollison v. B & J Mach. Co., 812 F.Supp. 618, 619 (D.S.C.1993) (“A motion under Rule 12(c) is an appropriate procedure when the statute of limitations is alleged to provide an effective bar against a plaintiff's claims.”).

A. Negligence

Ms. Rouse claims that Duke University and Dr. Moneta acted negligently in handling the response to her rape. Specifically, Ms. Rouse alleges that “[i]n undertaking to make public statements on behalf of the University, Moneta and other University officials had a duty to exercise care in doing so.” (Doc. 5 at 8 ¶ 49.) Ms. Rouse argues that the University and Dr. Moneta breached the duty of care when 1) Dr. Moneta made public statements concerning the rape of Ms. Rouse; 2) the University fostered a hostile educational environment after Ms. Rouse reported her rape; 3) the University failed to accommodate an unspecified disability; and 4) the University failed to avoid depriving Ms. Rouse “of rights guaranteed by law.” ( Id. at 8–9 ¶ 50.)

The defendants contend that Ms. Rouse's negligence claims are barred by the statute of limitations. In North Carolina, the statute of limitations for a negligence claim is three years. SeeN.C. Gen.Stat. § 1–52(16); Pompano Masonry Corp. v. HDR Architecture, Inc., 165 N.C.App. 401, 409, 598 S.E.2d 608, 613 (2004). North Carolina courts have framed the issue of accrual in various ways in different cases. In Pompano Masonry Corp., the court held that a negligence claim accrues and the limitations period begins running “at the time the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the injury or damage.” 165 N.C.App. at 409, 598 S.E.2d at 613. In Scott & Jones, Inc. v. Carlton Ins. Agency, Inc., the court held that a negligence cause of action “accrues when the wrong giving rise to the right to bring suit is committed, even though the damages at that time be nominal and the injuries cannot be discovered until a later date.” 196 N.C.App. 290, 298, 677 S.E.2d 848, 853 (2009).

In this case, the differing standards are largely immaterial, as Ms. Rouse specifically and repeatedly alleges that she suffered severe emotional...