John Doe v. Kachalia

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, v. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants. Case Nos. 23-cv-10393 (DEH) 23-cv-10394 (DEH) 23-cv-10395 (DEH) MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2024 ORDER Plaintiff John Doe, proceeding pro se, respectfully moves this Court for clarification of its September 11, 2024 Order dismissing all three cases with leave to amend within 30 days. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Court's September 11 Order dismissed Plaintiff's complaints in Doe v. Columbia University (23-cv-10393), Doe v. Hunter (23-cv-10394), and Doe v. Kachalia (23-cv-10395), but granted leave to amend by November 14, 2024. However, the Order does not address several critical legal arguments raised in Plaintiff's complaints and subsequent filings. As a pro se litigant seeking to meaningfully exercise the opportunity to amend, Plaintiff requires clarification of specific aspects of the Court's ruling to ensure any amended complaints adequately address the Court's concerns. BACKGROUND 1. Plaintiff filed three complaints asserting claims arising from sexual assault and subsequent institutional misconduct: o Doe v. Columbia University (contract rescission claims) o Doe v. Hunter (assault and battery claims) © Doe v. Kachalia (sexual assault claims) 2. The complaints raised several legal theories, including: o Mutual mistake as grounds for rescission of the settlement agreement o Equitable tolling of the statute of limitations o Ongoing violations and continuing harm o Title IX violations and retaliation 3. The Court's September 11 Order dismissed all three complaints but granted leave to amend within 30 days. ARGUMENT

I. Clarification Is Necessary for Meaningful Amendment Courts must provide pro se litigants with a meaningful opportunity to amend their complaints. See Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698, 705 (2d Cir. 1991) (holding that pro se plaintiffs should be granted leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated);Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795-96 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that a court dismissing a pro se complaint must provide sufficient guidance to the plaintiff to understand the deficiencies that need to be addressed in order to state a claim); Nielsen v. Rabin, 746 F.3d 58, 62 (2d Cir. 2014) (district court must provide pro se litigant with notice of complaint's deficiencies and opportunity to amend unless amendment would be futile); II. Specific Areas Requiring Clarification A. Mutual Mistake and Settlement Agreement ● The Court's Order does not address Plaintiff's arguments regarding mutual mistake under New York law. SeeSimkin v. Blank, 19 N.Y.3d 46, 52-53 (2012) (defining elements of mutual mistake claim and grounds for rescission). ● Clarification needed on whether these arguments were considered ● Guidance is needed on what additional facts would support rescission B. Statute of Limitations and Equitable Tolling ● The Order finds claims time-barred but does not address equitable tolling principles in sexual assault cases. SeeZimmerman v. Poly Prep Country Day Sch., 888 F. Supp. 2d 317, 333-34 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (discussing equitable tolling in context of institutional sexual abuse). ● Clarification on what facts would support tolling. ● Guidance needed on application of continuing violations doctrine. SeeNat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 113-14 (2002) (explaining continuing violation doctrine). C. Title IX Claims and Institutional Liability ● The Order does not specifically address the elements of Title IX claims or institutional liability. See Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 644-45 (1999) (setting forth elements of Title IX claim). ● Clarification needed on what additional facts would support these claims ● Guidance needed on how recent events affect timeliness and liability D. Sua Sponte Dismissal of Doe v. Hunter e The Order does not address the premature sua sponte dismissal before service of process. See Perez v. Ortiz, 849 F.2d 793, 797 (2d Cir. 1988) (sua sponte dismissal before service strongly disfavored). e Guidance needed on repleading tort claims against individual defendants lll. Good Cause Exists for Clarification Courts have inherent authority to clarify their own orders. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (discussing courts’ inherent power to manage their affairs). Pro se pleadings must be construed liberally. See Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (submissions of pro se litigants must be construed liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments they suggest). Clarification here would serve judicial economy by ensuring amended complaints properly address the Court's concerns. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: 1. Clarify its reasoning regarding: o The mutual mistake arguments for rescission o The application of statute of limitations and tolling doctrines o The sufficiency of Title IX allegations o The sua sponte dismissal of Doe v. Hunter 2. Provide specific guidance on what additional facts would support viable claims in each case 3. Stay the November 14 amendment deadline pending this clarification 4. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's letter, dated November 11, 2024. The motion ft Dated: November 11, 2024 clarification of the Court's September 11, 2024 opinion and order is GRANTED in and DENIED in part. The Court's opinion can be found at ECF No. 46 in Case No. Respectfully submitted, Civ. 10393, ECF No. 24 in Case No. 10394, and ECF No. 29 in Case No. 23 Civ. I /s/ John Doe The request for clarification is GRANTED to the extent the Court reiterates her John Doe grounds for its decision. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's federal claims on statut Plaintiff Pro Se limitations grounds, see pages 22-24 of the opinion, and then declined to exercise lemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims, see pages 25-26 of the opinion. To the extent Plaintiff seeks guidanc facts that would support viable claims in his case, the Court cannot provide legal advice. Accordingly, the request fc is DENIED. request to extend his deadline to seek leave to amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff's letter is dated three days before his line to seek leave to amend, which was previously extended by 30 days to November 14. If Plaintiff believes he can cure t in the Complaints related to the statute of limitations, he may file a motion for leave to amend, attaching as an exhi Amended Complaint, by December 20, 2024. In light of the procedural history of this case, no further extensions wil The clerk of Court is respectfully requested to enter this order in Nos. 23 Civ. 10393, 23 Civ. 10394, and 23 Civ. □□□□□ close ECF Nos. 61, 29, and 44, respectively. SO ORDERED. D4 A Dale E. Ho