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

Twersky v. Yeshiva Univ.

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

January 29, 2014, Decided; January 30, 2014, Filed

13 Civ. 4679 (JGK)

Opinion

 [*432]  OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:

The plaintiffs in this action are thirty-four former students of Yeshiva University High School for Boys ("YUHS"). Each of  [*433]  them alleges that he was abused by one or more of three individuals, two of whom were employed by YUHS, during the period from 1971 to 1992. The plaintiffs have brought this action not against their individual abusers, but against YUHS, Yeshiva University ("YU"), former administrators of YU, and several unnamed members of the Board of Trustees of YUHS and YU, asserting causes of action for fraud, negligence, violation of New York's General Business Law, and violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 ("Title IX"). The defendants have moved to dismiss all of the claims against them pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and, in the case of the allegations sounding in fraud, for failure to satisfy the heightened pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The plaintiffs oppose the defendants' motion and have also cross-moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint  [**3] pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).

The defendants' motion is based for the most part on the claim that the statutes of limitations for all of the plaintiffs' federal and state claims have expired. ] Statutes of limitations strike a balance between providing a reasonable time for victims to bring their claims while assuring that defendants have a fair opportunity to defend themselves before evidence is lost or memories fade. In this case, the statutes of limitations have expired decades ago, and no exceptions apply. Therefore, for the reasons explained below, the defendants' motion is granted, the plaintiffs' motion is denied, and the plaintiffs' Amended Complaint ("Complaint") is 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).  [**4] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a claim for relief contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 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, 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.

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.

993 F. Supp. 2d 429 *; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11604 **; 2014 WL 314728

MORDECHAI TWERSKY, ET AL., Plaintiffs, - against - YESHIVA UNIVERSITY, ET AL., Defendants.

Subsequent History: Affirmed by Twersky v. Yeshiva Univ., 579 Fed. Appx. 7, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17105 (2d Cir. N.Y., 2014)

Reconsideration denied by Twersky v. Yeshiva Univ., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89152 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2015)

CORE TERMS

equitable estoppel, allegations, statute of limitations, discovery rule, misrepresentations, plaintiffs', abused, cause of action, concealment, amended complaint, accrual, accrues, tolling, defendants', sexual abuse, time-barred, fraud claim, fraudulent, state-law, cases, motion to dismiss, school official, prima facie, complaints, doctrine of equitable estoppel, matter of law, misstatements, alteration, diligence, quotation

Governments, Legislation, Statute of Limitations, Time Limitations, Civil Procedure, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Pleading & Practice, Motion Practice, General Overview, Pleadings, Complaints, Requirements for Complaint, Heightened Pleading Requirements, Fraud Claims, Affirmative Defenses, Pleadings & Proof, Education Law, Gender & Sex Discrimination, Title IX, Torts, Tolling, Disabilities, Tolling, Procedural Matters, Federal & State Interrelationships, Federal Common Law, Applicability, Preliminary Considerations, Erie Doctrine, Discovery Rule, Courts, Rule Application & Interpretation, Equitable Estoppel, Antitrust & Trade Law, Consumer Protection, False Advertising, State Regulation, Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices, Fraud & Misrepresentation, Actual Fraud, Defenses, Intentional Torts, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Types of Negligence Actions, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Begins to Run, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Amendment of Pleadings, Leave of Court