Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Kocsis v. Fla. State Univ. Bd. of Trs.

Kocsis v. Fla. State Univ. Bd. of Trs.

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

August 19, 2021, Decided

No. 20-10474 Non-Argument Calendar

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Crystal Kocsis, proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of her motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Kocsis filed her motion after this Court affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the Florida State University Board of Trustees ("FSU") in Kocsis's sexual harassment and retaliation case. In this appeal, Kocsis argues that she is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1) because she misunderstood the law and did not know to raise certain issues, including disparate treatment; she asserts that she should be allowed to amend her complaint to add those issues now. She then argues that because she did not know to raise certain issues, those issues have not been decided on the merits. And she contends that her request to amend her complaint is appropriate under [*2]  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) because her proposed amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading. None of these arguments are persuasive, and we accordingly affirm.

Let's start with a brief overview of the facts.

In 2016, Kocsis filed an action against FSU, its Title IX Director, the Dean of the College of Criminology, and two professors, alleging violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 ("Title IX"). She alleged that while a PhD student at FSU, she witnessed a professor subject female students and students of color to a hostile environment and claimed that FSU failed to take appropriate action in response. She additionally asserted that professors retaliated against her for her complaint by lowering her grades and denying her an assistantship—a type of academic appointment.

FSU and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss in response. A magistrate judge found that, liberally construed, Kocsis's complaint alleged a discrimination claim under Title IX and a retaliation claim for calling attention to such discrimination. The magistrate judge recommended that the claims against the individual defendants be dismissed and the remaining claims against FSU proceed. The District [*3]  Court adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation and dismissed the claims against only the individual defendants.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 24738 *; __ Fed. Appx. __; 2021 WL 3671137

CRYSTAL LEANNE KOCSIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Florida Public Entity, Defendant-Appellee,

Notice: PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

Prior History:  [*1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. D.C. Docket No. 4:16-cv-00529-RH-MJF.

Kocsis v. Fla. State Univ. Bd. of Trs., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 257982 (N.D. Fla., Jan. 15, 2020)

Disposition: AFFIRMED.

CORE TERMS

district court, amend, disparate, excusable neglect, magistrate judge, legal theory

Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, Abuse of Discretion, Judgments, Relief From Judgments, Newly Discovered Evidence, Extraordinary Circumstances, Excusable Mistakes & Neglect, Excusable Neglect, Mistake, Preclusion of Judgments, Res Judicata, Sanctions, Baseless Filings, Vexatious Litigants