Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Singleton v. Clash

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

June 28, 2013, Decided; July 1, 2013, Filed

12 Civ. 8465 (JGK); 12 Civ. 8948 (JGK); 13 Civ. 2172 (JGK)

Opinion

 [*581]  OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:

The plaintiffs, Cecil Singleton, S.M. ("John Doe"), and Kevin Kiadii, each bring claims against  [**2] the defendant, Kevin Clash, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a). All of the plaintiffs allege that when they were minors, the defendant used a facility or means of interstate commerce to persuade or induce them to engage in sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. John Doe also alleges that when he was a minor the defendant transported him from Florida to New York with the intent to engage in sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423. The defendant moves to dismiss all of the claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the ground that they are barred by the statute of limitations, 18 U.S.C. § 2255(b). For the reasons explained below the motions are granted and the complaints are dismissed.

In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the allegations in the complaint are accepted as true, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in the plaintiff's favor. McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court's function on a motion to dismiss is "not to weigh the evidence that might be presented at a trial but merely to determine whether the complaint itself is legally sufficient." Goldman v. Belden, 754 F.2d 1059, 1067 (2d Cir. 1985).  [**3] The Court should not dismiss the complaint if the plaintiff has stated "enough facts 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). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678,  [*582]  129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). While the Court should construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in the complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Id.

When presented with a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court may consider documents that are referenced in the complaint, documents that the plaintiff relied on in bringing suit and that are either in the plaintiff's possession or that the plaintiff knew of when bringing suit, or matters of which judicial notice may be taken. See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 153 (2d Cir. 2000); see also Roseville Emps.' Ret. Sys. v. Energysolutions, Inc., 814 F. Supp. 2d 395, 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

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.

951 F. Supp. 2d 578 *; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92088 **; 2013 WL 3285096

CECIL SINGLETON, ET AL., Plaintiffs, - against - KEVIN CLASH, Defendant.

Subsequent History: Affirmed by S.M. v. Clash, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4377 (2d Cir. N.Y., Mar. 10, 2014)

CORE TERMS

discovery rule, accrues, statute of limitations, injuries, alleges, plaintiffs', accrual, six years, three year, time-barred, complaints, cause of action, sexual activity, psychological, retroactively, defendant's conduct, motion to dismiss, discovery, sexual, sexual abuse, damages, revive, cases, violation of section, personal injury, disability, encounter, minors, limitations period, sexual act