McCormick et al v. Dresdale et al, No. 1:2009cv00474 - Document 33 (D.R.I. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 15 Motion to Dismiss; granting 25 Motion to Strike; defering ruling on 16 MOTION to Dismiss Action As Against Them Pursuant To F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6). So Ordered by Judge William E. Smith on 4/28/10. (Jackson, Ryan)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
McCormick et al v. Dresdale et al Doc. 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND ______________________________ ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) MARCELLA E. DRESDALE, RICHARD ) C. DRESDALE, and BROWN ) UNIVERSITY et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________) WILLIAM R. MCCORMICK, III, CAROL A. MCCORMICK, and WILLIAM R. MCCORMICK, II, CA. No. 09-474 S ORDER WILLIAM E. SMITH, United States District Judge. Plaintiff William McCormick (hereinafter “William”) was a freshman student at Brown University (“Brown”) in 2006. As an athlete-scholar Brown offered him a full scholarship and the promise of an Ivy League education. ended abruptly William and at the his end of parents, that This relationship, however, first William year, and resulting Carol in McCormick (hereinafter “the parents”) filing a lawsuit in Rhode Island Superior Court. The crux of Plaintiffs’ claims are based upon an incident whereby William alleges Defendant Marcella Dresdale, then a fellow Brown freshman, falsely accused him of rape; an accusation that quickly spiraled downwards into William’s Dockets.Justia.com withdrawal from Brown and the corresponding loss of his full scholarship. This case was filed under seal in the Rhode Island Superior Court at the request of Plaintiffs, based upon their concerns arising from Dresdales a that provisions. mutual release contains signed confidentiality by William and the and non-disparagement Defendants removed the case to federal court and Plaintiffs moved to remand -- a motion that this Court denied. Plaintiffs then moved to lift the seal, which the Court granted over the pro-forma objection of the Dresdales. At some point prior to Plantiffs’ motion to lift the seal, Plaintiffs became acutely aware of serious deficiencies in their sweeping Complaint. deficiencies by Plaintiffs filing a First sought Amended to correct Complaint, those hoping to stave off any motions to dismiss and proceed directly into the discovery perceiving phase of litigation. deficiencies with the Defendants, pleading, however, filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs objected to the motions and attached the still instant In response, a proposed Second Amended Complaint to that objection, along with numerous exhibits and documents outside the scope of the First Amended Complaint. Defendants promptly moved to Amended Complaint and the attached exhibits. strike the Second At oral argument Plaintiffs basically conceded that the First Amended Complaint 2 was the operative document at issue. The Court now grants Defendants’ motion to strike insofar as Plaintiffs attempt to include exhibits not sufficiently incorporated into the First Amended Complaint. Now before the Court are the motions of Brown University (“Brown”), Ruth Simmons, David Kertzer, Russell Carey, Margaret Klawunn, Carla Hanson, Terry H. Addison, Robert Samuels, Jonah (Alan) Ward, Richard Bova, Rosario Navarro, Michelle Nuey, Col. Mark Porter, Shane Reil, Yolanda all Castillo-Appollonio, named individually and as Chung Nguyen, agents for and Brown University ( “the individual Brown Defendants”) and Marcella and Richard Dresdale ( “the Dresdales”) to dismiss all claims in the First Amended Complaint.1 At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel conceded that many of the claims brought in the First Amended Complaint (in particular, those against the individual Brown Defendants) were premature. Only after discovery would the basis for the claims, if any existed, be revealed. Plaintiffs’ counsel averred that he had sought to voluntarily dismiss some of the claims without 1 The Court notes that William’s breach of contract claim against Brown is not at issue here. Furthermore, the parents have voluntarily dismissed their breach of contract claims against the individual Brown Defendants and Plaintiffs’ counsel clarified at hearing that Count VII in the First Amended Complaint (entitled “Acts Tantamount to Criminality”) is merely a request for punitive damages and is not a separate theory of liability. 3 prejudice, under the auspices of Rule 41(a); however, opposing counsel did not consent, as is required by the rule. Plaintiffs’ counsel has raised a concern that many fact witnesses from Brown soon leaving Rhode Island. will be graduating and presumably Given the existence of pressing time concerns and the likely need for expedited discovery in this regard, the Court has concluded that it is in the interest of all parties that the Court (to the extent possible) should convey its rulings in expedited fashion. To the extent further explanatory explain detail may be necessary to the holdings below the Court will address those issues at a future time. After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and after oral arguments, it is ordered as follows: (1) Taking all the allegations set forth in the First Amended Complaint as true, as is required by Rule 12(b)(6), the Court is satisfied that William has alleged a pattern of wrongful conduct based on the collective actions of the agents of Brown University that, if proven, could be considered outrageous, atrocious or utterly intolerable conduct on the part of Brown. See Hoffman v. Davenport-Metcalf, 851 A.2d 1083, 1089 (R.I. 2004). Therefore, the Court DENIES Brown’s motion to dismiss William’s Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claim; 4 (2) The Court agrees that “the particular fact and circumstances [here] including [1] the relationship between the parties, [2] the scope and burden of the obligation to be imposed upon the defendant, [3] public policy considerations, and [4] the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff” weigh in favor of imposing a duty on Brown University to conduct a reasonable investigation, and may include contacting the proper authorities, when confronted with alleged criminal activities by its students. 658 (R.I. alterations Santana v. Rainbow Cleaners, Inc., 969 A.2d 653, 2009) (internal omitted). quotation Therefore, marks, the Court citations DENIES and Brown’s motion to dismiss William’s negligence claim; (3) The Court GRANTS the individual Brown Defendants’ motion to dismiss William’s Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Negligence claims, but does so WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (4) The Court agrees that the face of the First Amended Complaint reveals that the meeting with William and four agents on behalf of Brown, to address a credible allegation of “sexual misconduct” privileged. individual against William, Therefore, Brown the Defendants’ was legally Court GRANTS motions Imprisonment claim WITH PREJUDICE; 5 to justified Brown dismiss and the and the False (5) The Defendants’ Court GRANTS motions to Brown dismiss and the the individual Libel claims Brown WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (6) The Court finds that the parents were not third party beneficiaries to any contract between William, eighteen on September 26, 2005, and Brown. who turned See e.g. Doe v. The University of the South, No. 4:09-cv-62, 2009 WL 3297288 *12, 14 (E. D. Tenn. Oct. 13, 2009) (no standing for parents of majority age student to bring claim against university) (citing Apffel v. Huddleston, 50 F.Supp.2d 1129, 1133 (D. Utah 1999)). Therefore, the Court GRANTS Brown’s motion to dismiss the parents’ claims for Breach of Contract WITH PREJUDICE; (7) The Defendants’ Intentional Court GRANTS motions Infliction to Brown dismiss of and the the parents’ Emotional Distress individual and claims Brown for Negligence, however, these claims are dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and (8) The Court defers on ruling on the Dresdales’ motion to dismiss based upon the Release at this time. IT IS SO ORDERED: /s/ William E. Smith William E. Smith United States District Judge Date: April 28, 2010 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
