SB v. Newark Cent. Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 23 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 6:21-CV-06138 EAW |
| Parties | SB, on behalf of his infant child, AB, Plaintiffs, v. NEWARK CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NEWARK CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, MATTHEW HOLLAND, individually and in his official capacity, MATTHEW COOK, individually and in his official capacity, THOMAS ROOTE, individually and in his official capacity, ROBYN ROSS, individually and in her official capacity, and SCOTT DIAMOND, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff SB (“Plaintiff SB”), on behalf of his minor child, plaintiff AB (“Plaintiff AB”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), [1] commenced this action asserting claims against defendants Newark Central School District (“NCSD”), Newark Central School District Board of Education (“BOE”), Matthew Holland (“Defendant Holland”), Matthew Cook (“Defendant Cook”), Thomas Roote (“Defendant Roote”), Robyn Ross (“Defendant Ross”), and Scott Diamond (“Defendant Diamond”). (Dkt. 18). Presently before the Court is a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) filed by NCSD, BOE, Defendant Cook, Defendant Roote Defendant Ross, and Defendant Diamond (collectively “Moving Defendants”). (Dkt. 32). For the reasons that follow, Moving Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.
The following facts are taken from Plaintiffs' amended complaint. (Dkt. 18).
Plaintiff SB is the father of Plaintiff AB, a minor female who attends Newark High School in the NCSD, where Defendant Holland was employed as a teaching assistant. (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 2, 9, 17). Defendant Cook was the Superintendent of NCSD who was responsible for administering all policies and enforcing the rules and regulations of the BOE. (Id. at ¶¶ 23, 25). Defendant Roote was the principal of Newark High School. (Id. at ¶ 30).
In 2017, Defendant Holland pretended to be a 14-year-old boy on the social media messaging platform, “Snapchat, ” and encouraged Plaintiff AB, who was a minor, to send him photographs that were “pornographic in nature.” (Id. at ¶ 57). When Plaintiff AB refused Defendant Holland threatened her by stating that he knew where she lived. (Id. at ¶ 58). Ultimately, Plaintiff AB relented and sent Defendant Holland “a photo.” (Id.). Defendant Holland then further blackmailed Plaintiff AB and threatened to disseminate the photo on the internet if she did not send him more photos. (Id. at ¶ 59). Defendant Holland continued to contact Plaintiff AB on Snapchat, using multiple pseudonyms. (Id. at ¶ 60). Plaintiff AB did not become aware that the various individuals contacting her and harassing her on Snapchat were actually Defendant Holland until law enforcement contacted her family in June of 2020. (Id. at ¶ 61).
On July 15, 2020, a criminal complaint was filed against Defendant Holland. (Id. at ¶ 62). On March 12, 2021, Defendant Holland pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, including images he obtained from minors over social media. (Id. at ¶ 65). Defendant Holland also pleaded guilty to surreptitiously recording minors in bathrooms of homes and in his photography studio. (Id. at ¶¶ 66-69).
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Cook, Roote, Ross, NCSD, and the BOE “had actual notice of Defendant Holland's criminal and abnormal behaviors throughout his employment at [NCSD] but continuously ignored the warnings and failed to conduct any proper investigation into the situation.” (Id. at ¶ 72). Plaintiffs allege several examples of abnormal or inappropriate conduct by Defendant Holland that they allege provided Moving Defendants with notice of his propensities.
Plaintiffs allege that in October of 2014, Defendant Holland received a counseling memo from the Secondary Principal at Newark High School regarding inappropriate conversations and conduct Defendant Holland had with students. (Id. at ¶ 73). Despite having knowledge of Defendant Holland's inappropriate behavior with students, Defendants Cook, Roote, Ross, NCSD, and BOE failed to appropriately supervise Defendant Holland. (Id. ¶ 74).
Plaintiffs also allege that at some point in 2018, Plaintiff AB and a friend were talking during a recorded conversation at the broadcasting club about Defendant Holland, describing him as creepy and noting that something was off with his behavior. (Id. at ¶ 75). Defendant Diamond, the broadcast TV/social media coordinator for NCSD, told Defendant Holland about the conversation between Plaintiff AB and her friend. (Id. at ¶ 78). Defendant Diamond then confronted Plaintiff AB about the recording while Defendant Holland was in the room. (Id.). In Defendant Holland's presence, Plaintiff AB denied that was how she felt about him and Defendant Diamond deleted the recorded conversation. (Id. at ¶¶ 79, 80). Although Plaintiff AB subsequently further discussed with Defendant Diamond the recording and her complaints about Defendant Holland, Defendant Diamond did not report Plaintiff AB's complaints to any authorities. (Id. at ¶ 81).
In the spring of 2018, a concerned staff member who witnessed Defendant Holland's inappropriate behaviors reported it to Defendant Ross, the Assistant Principal. (Id. at ¶ 89). Defendant Ross downplayed the complaint and suggested that the female students liked to be around Defendant Holland because he is attractive. (Id. at ¶¶ 89, 90). Plaintiffs allege upon information and belief that Defendant Ross then went to the President of the Teachers' Union and told the President to back off Defendant Holland. (Id. at ¶ 91). Defendant Ross failed to report the complaint about Defendant Holland to anyone or to adequately supervise him. (Id. at ¶¶ 92, 93).
In October 2019, Defendant Holland called Plaintiff AB to a private room at Newark High School to confront her about his belief that she had negatively impacted a job interview he had, which resulted in him not getting the job he sought. (Id. at ¶ 82). When two teaching assistants entered the room and found Defendant Holland alone in the private room with Plaintiff AB, they reported the incident. (Id. at ¶ 84). Defendant Holland only received a reprimand letter for “unprofessional behavior” for this incident. (Id. at ¶ 85). Defendant Holland resigned sometime in October 2019. (Id. at ¶ 87).
Despite having complaints from its own staff members regarding Defendant Holland's unusual behaviors, NCSD and BOE failed to conduct adequate investigations. (Id. at ¶ 100). Plaintiff AB suffers from nighttime terrors as a result of her traumatic experiences and continues to receive counseling services. (Id. at ¶ 106).
Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendant Holland pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, known as Masha's Law (Count I), and a state law claim for assault (Count X). Plaintiffs assert claims against NCSD and BOE for violations of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) (Count II), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count III), and state law claims for negligent hiring/retention (Count IV), negligent supervision (Count V), and intentional misrepresentation (Count IX). Plaintiffs bring a claim against all Defendants for negligence/gross negligence (Count VI), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count VII), and negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count VIII). Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest as damages. (Id. at 33-34).
On February 8, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the instant action. (Dkt. 1). On March 26, 2021, Moving Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. 16). Plaintiffs amended their complaint as of right on April 16, 2021. (Dkt. 18). On April 27, 2021, the Court exercised its discretion to deny the motion to dismiss as moot and directed Moving Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint within 14 days of service thereof. (Dkt. 23). On May 5, 2021, Plaintiffs sought Clerk's Entry of Default against Moving Defendants. (Dkt. 26; Dkt. 27; Dkt. 28; Dkt. 29; Dkt. 30). No. Entries of Default were entered by the Clerk because Plaintiffs failed to file any proof of service for the amended complaint with their requests.
On May 6, 2021, Moving Defendants answered the complaint. (Dkt. 31).[2] On the same day, Moving Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss. (Dkt. 32).[3] On May 28, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion (Dkt. 35) and on June 4, 2021, Moving Defendants filed their reply (Dkt. 36).
As noted above, Moving Defendants seek dismissal of this action under both Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
“Subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold question that must be resolved before proceeding to the merits.” United States v. Bond, 762 F.3d 255, 263 (2d Cir. 2014) (quotation and alteration omitted). “A district court properly dismisses an action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it .” Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telecomms., S.á.r.l, 790 F.3d 411, 416-17 (2d Cir. 2015) (quotation and citation omitted). “A plaintiff asserting subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it exists.” Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). “When considering a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction . . . a court must accept as true all material factual allegations in the complaint.” Shipping Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Drakos, 140 F.3d 129, 131 (2d Cir. 1998); see also Tandon v. Captain's Cove Marina of Bridgeport, Inc., 752 F.3d 239, 243 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial