Case 3:20-cv-00106-M Document 35 Filed 05/20/20

Page 1 of 11 PageID 815

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JANE DOE NO. 1, JANE DOE NO. 2,
AND JANE DOE NO. 3
Plaintiffs,
v.
TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY, DR.
DIANE SNOW, DR. ANDREW
SCHOOLMASTER, DR. ROB
GARNETT, DR. DARRON TURNER,
RUSSELL MACK, J.D., LEIGH
HOLLAND AND AARON CHIMBEL,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-cv-00106-M

DEFENDANT LEIGH HOLLAND’S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF JANE DOE
NO. 1 FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE
GRANTED AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
George C. Haratsis
Texas Bar No. 08941000
gch@mcdonaldlaw.com
Rory Divin
Texas Bar No. 05902800
rd@mcdonaldlaw.com
Jennifer Littman
Texas Bar No. 00786142
jnl@mcdonaldlaw.com
McDONALD SANDERS,
a Professional Corporation
777 Main Street, Suite 2700
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
(817) 336-8651
(817) 334-0271 Fax
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
LEIGH HOLLAND

 Case 3:20-cv-00106-M Document 35 Filed 05/20/20

Page 2 of 11 PageID 816

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
II. BACKGROUND........................................................................................................... 2
A. Summary of Doe No. 1’s Allegations ................................................................ 2
B. Doe No. 1’s Pleaded Claims Against Holland ................................................... 3
III. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ............................................................................. 3
A. Doe No. 1 has not pleaded a plausible substantive claim against Holland. ...... 3
1.

Doe No. 1’s negligence claim should be dismissed ......................................... 4

IV. REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL ..................................................................................... 7

DEFENDANT LEIGH HOLLAND’S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF JANE DOE NO. 1 AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

PAGE i

 Case 3:20-cv-00106-M Document 35 Filed 05/20/20

Page 3 of 11 PageID 817

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 698 (2009) ............................................................ 3, 4, 6
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) ................................................. 3, 4
Boyd v. Tex. Christian Univ., Inc., 8 S.W.3d 758, 760 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
1999, no pet.) ............................................................................................................... 6
Boyles v. Kerr, 855 S.W.2d 593, 601–602 (Tex. 1993) ................................................... 7
Greater Hous. Transp. Co. v. Phillips, 801 S.W.2d 523, 525 (Tex. 1990) ....................... 5
Ho v. Univ. of Tex. at Arlington, 984 S.W.2d 672, 693 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998,
pet. denied) .................................................................................................................. 6
Hux v. S. Methodist Univ., 819 F.3d 776, 781–83 (5th Cir. 2016) ................................... 6
Leitch v. Hornsby, 935 S.W.2d 114, 117 (Tex. 1996) ...................................................... 4
Lutz v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC., 717 F.3d 459, 464 (6th Cir. 2013)...................... 7
Pagayon v. Exxon Mobile Corp., 536 S.W.3d 499 (Tex. 2017) ....................................... 5
Plotkin v. IP Axess Inc., 407 F.3d 690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).................. 3
Thapar v. Zekulka, 994 S.W.2d 635, 637 (Tex. 1999) ..................................................... 4
Tri v. J.T.T., 162 S.W.3d 552, 562 (Tex. 2005) ............................................................... 4

DEFENDANT LEIGH HOLLAND’S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF JANE DOE NO. 1 AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

PAGE ii

 Case 3:20-cv-00106-M Document 35 Filed 05/20/20

Page 4 of 11 PageID 818

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Leigh
Holland (“Holland”) respectfully files this motion to dismiss (“Motion”) all of the claims of
Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 1 (“Doe No. 1”) against Holland in Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint [Doc. 19], and brief in support.
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a suit brought by Doe No. 1, a student at Texas Christian University
(“TCU”), against TCU, Holland, Dr. Diane Snow (“Snow”), Russell Mack (“Mack”), Aaron
Chimbel (“Chimbel”), Dr. Rob Garnett (“Garnett”), and Dr. Darron Turner (“Turner”), after
she was sanctioned for academic conduct, i.e., plagiarism, following a four week TCU
Honors Exploration program in Washington, D.C. entitled “How Washington D.C. Works.”
[Compl. ¶ 90-91, 126, 169-173-.] 1 Doe No. 1 does not deny that she submitted plagiarized
assignments during the course or allege that she was falsely accused of plagiarism. As a
result of the academic misconduct, Doe No. 1 received no-credit (NC) for the pass/fail
course.
After Doe No. 1 was confronted with the plagiarism, she proceeded to file a Title
IX complaint with TCU’s Title IX Office, alleging mistreatment by Snow during the
Washington, D.C. program. [Compl. ¶ 130.] Doe No. 1 also appealed the NC grade, and
her appeal was denied. [Compl. ¶ 170, 173.] Before the internal Title IX complaint was
resolved, Doe No. 1 sued TCU and several of the individual defendants. 2 [Compl. ¶ 130.]

1 References in this Motion to [Compl. ¶ ____.] are to paragraphs in Doe No. 1’s First Amended Complaint
(“Complaint”). For example, a reference to [Compl. ¶ 90.] is a reference to paragraph 90 of her Complaint.
2 Doe No. 1 added Holland as a defendant when she filed the First Amended Complaint.

DEFENDANT LEIGH HOLLAND’S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF JANE DOE NO. 1 AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

PAGE 1

 Case 3:20-cv-00106-M Document 35 Filed 05/20/20

Page 5 of 11 PageID 819

Doe No. 1 alleges Holland was negligent in the handling of her Title IX complaint. Holland
asks this Court to dismiss her claims against her.
II. BACKGROUND
A.

Summary of Doe No. 1’s Allegations
Individual defendants Mack, Chimbel, and Snow each facilitated one week of the

four-week program in Washington, D.C., from July 7, 2019 through August 3, 2019. 3 Near
the end of the program, it was determined that Doe No. 1 had plagiarized written
assignments submitted during the program. As a sanction for the academic misconduct,
Doe No. 1 received a grade of No Credit for the pass/fail course. Doe No. 1 appealed the
decision to co-defendant Garnett, Associate Dean of the Honors College, but he upheld
the decision and denied Doe No. 1’s appeal.
Around the same time, Doe No. 1 raised allegations of mistreatment during the
Washington, D.C. trip. After Doe No. 1 returned to TCU, Doe No. 1 proceeded to file a
Title IX complaint over her perceived treatment during the Washington, D.C. program.
[Compl. ¶ 130.] The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s causes of action are described in the
106-page Complaint, but specific allegations against Holland are minimal. In summary,
Plaintiff alleges:
•

On July 31, 2019, Holland contacted Doe No. 1 concerning an “incident in D.C.”
[Compl. ¶ 131.]

3 Dr. Frederick Gooding (“Gooding”) also led one week of the four-week program. Doe No. 1 dismissed her
claims against Gooding when she filed the First Amended Complaint.

DEFENDANT LEIGH HOLLAND’S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF JANE DOE NO. 1 AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

PAGE 2

 Case 3:20-cv-00106-M Document 35 Filed 05/20/20

•

Page 6 of 11 PageID 820

On or about August 26, 2019, Doe No. 1 spoke with Holland and co-defendant
Turner and emailed them a written Title IX statement and list of witnesses. [Compl.
¶ 130.] 4

•

On March 23, 2020, Doe No. 1 received a Title IX Decision Letter authorized by
Holland which stated TCU received Doe No. 1’s Title IX complaint on August 26,
2019 5 and which concluded Dr. Snow did not violate TCU’s policy on Prohibited
Discrimination, Harassment and Related Conduct.” [Compl. ¶ 131.]

B.

Doe No. 1’s Pleaded Claims Against Holland
Plaintiff asserts a negligence causes of action against Holland.
III. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

A.

Doe No. 1 has not pleaded a plausible substantive claim against Holland.
A plaintiff’s complaint must plead sufficient facts to “state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 698 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (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.” Id. Courts “do not accept as true
conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions.” Plotkin v.
IP Axess Inc., 407 F.3d 690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted); see also Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 679 (“While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must
be supported by factual allegations.”). Although “a court must accept as true all of the

Absent from this Complaint are the names of a single witness to any of the acts alleged to have occurred.
Doe No. 1 acknowledges she submitted her written statement and list of witnesses on August 26, 2019.
[Compl. ¶ 130.]
4
5

DEFENDANT LEIGH HOLLAND’S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF JANE DOE NO. 1 AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

PAGE 3

 Case 3:20-cv-00106-M Document 35 Filed 05/20/20

Page 7 of 11 PageID 821

allegations contained in a complaint, that tenet is inapplicable to legal conclusions” and
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 697 (2009). The plausibility standard is not
akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557.) If “the plaintiffs
have not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their complaint
must be dismissed.” (Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.) Holland moves the Court to dismiss
each of Doe No. 1’s case against her for failure to state a claim.
1.

Doe No. 1’s negligence claim should be dismissed.

Doe No. 1’s negligence claim fails as a matter of law. To state a negligence claim,
she must allege facts showing (1) Holland owed her a legal duty, (2) Holland breached
that duty, and (3) damage proximately caused by the breach. Thapar v. Zekulka, 994
S.W.2d 635, 637 (Tex. 1999).
To be liable for negligence under Texas law, an individual acting as an agent or
employee must have an independent duty of reasonable care to the plaintiff, separate
from the employer's duty. Tri v. J.T.T., 162 S.W.3d 552, 562 (Tex. 2005) (citing Leitch v.
Hornsby, 935 S.W.2d 114, 117 (Tex. 1996)). Doe has not alleged a single fact that would
indicate Holland was acting outside the scope of his employment with TCU in handling
Doe’s Title IX complaint. In fact, Doe alleges that at all relevant times, TCU’s agents –
which includes Holland - were acting within the course and scope of their employment
and/or at the direction and under the control of TCU. [Compl. ¶ 231.] Therefore, to state
a claim of negligence against Holland individually, Doe No. 1 must plead sufficient facts

DEFENDANT LEIGH HOLLAND’S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF JANE DOE NO. 1 AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

PAGE 4

 Case 3:20-cv-00106-M Document 35 Filed 05/20/20

Page 8 of 11 PageID 822

to establish Holland owed her a legal duty independent of any duty owed by TCU. Doe
No. 1’s Complaint fails in that regard.
The existence of a legal duty is a question of law and the threshold inquiry of the
court. Pagayon v. Exxon Mobile Corp., 536 S.W.3d 499 (Tex. 2017) (citing Greater Hous.
Transp. Co. v. Phillips, 801 S.W.2d 523, 525 (Tex. 1990)). Texas courts have not imposed
a general duty on university faculty members and administrators to act with reasonable
care towards their adult students. “When a duty has not been recognized in particular
circumstances, the question is whether one should be.” Pagayon, 536 S.W.3d at 504.
When analyzing whether a common law duty exists, courts consider the risk,
foreseeability and likelihood of injury weighed against the social utility of the actor’s
conduct, the burden of guarding against the injury and the consequences of placing the
burden on the defendant. Id.; Phillips, 801 S.W.2d at 525.
According to Doe No. 1, Holland reached out to her on July 31, 2019 about the
“incident in D.C.” [Compl. ¶ 131.], she talked to Doe No. 1 on August 26, 2019 [Compl. ¶
130.], and Holland authored the letter which advised Doe No. 1 that Snow had not violated
TCU’s policy. Viewing these allegations in a light most favorable to Doe No. 1, the utility
of Holland’s actions, the burden of guarding against injury to Doe No. 1, and the
consequence of placing that burden on Holland far outweighs any potential for risk,
foreseeability or likelihood of injury to Doe No. 1, and the Court should decline to impose
an independent duty on Holland.
In addition to applying the risk-utility test, courts also consider whether there was
a special relationship between the parties. Doe No. 1 asserts Holland owed her a legal
duty because she had a special relationship with [Doe No. 1] as a designated point-person

DEFENDANT LEIGH HOLLAND’S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF JANE DOE NO. 1 AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

PAGE 5

 Case 3:20-cv-00106-M Document 35 Filed 05/20/20

Page 9 of 11 PageID 823

for discrimination complaints.” [Compl. ¶ 237.] But the relationship between a university
faculty member or administrator and his or her adult student is not a special relationship.
See Ho v. Univ. of Tex. at Arlington, 984 S.W.2d 672, 693 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998,
pet. denied); see also Boyd v. Tex. Christian Univ., Inc., 8 S.W.3d 758, 760 (Tex. App.—
Fort Worth 1999, no pet.); Hux v. S. Methodist Univ., 819 F.3d 776, 781–83 (5th Cir.
2016).

Therefore, the Court should not find a duty exists because of a special

relationship.
Assuming, for purposes of this Motion, Holland owed Doe No. an independent
duty, she has failed to plead sufficient facts demonstrating Holland breached any duty.
Doe No. 1’s conclusory statement that “the act and omissions detailed herein constitute
breaches of said duties” is insufficient. According to the Complaint, the only thing Holland
did was communicate with Doe No. 1 on a couple of occasions and author the letter
finding Snow did not violate TCU’s policy on harassment and discrimination. The fact
that Doe No. 1 disagrees with the outcome is insufficient to allege breach of a duty.
Additionally, Doe No. 1’s allegation that Holland “proximately caused” her injuries
[Compl. ¶ 237] is nothing more than a recital of one of the necessary elements of a
negligence cause of action, which is insufficient to state a plausible claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 697.

Doe No. 1 has failed to allege any facts supporting how Holland’s handling of

her Title IX complaint proximately caused Doe No. 1’s damages.
As a result of the alleged negligence, Doe No. 1 also alleges she suffered
“psychological and physiological injury.” [Compl. ¶ 237.] Doe No. 1 has failed to allege
any injuries, other than emotional harm, and she cannot recover under a negligence

DEFENDANT LEIGH HOLLAND’S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF JANE DOE NO. 1 AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

PAGE 6

 Case 3:20-cv-00106-M Document 35 Filed 05/20/20

Page 10 of 11 PageID 824

theory for mental anguish or emotional distress damages alone. Boyles v. Kerr, 855
S.W.2d 593, 601–602 (Tex. 1993).
Because Doe No. 1’s allegations fail to nudge her claims across the line from
conceivable to plausible, her negligence claims should be dismissed. Lutz v. Chesapeake
Appalachia, LLC., 717 F.3d 459, 464 (6th Cir. 2013).
IV. REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant, Leigh Holland, requests that the Court
enter an order dismissing all of Plaintiff’s claims against her with prejudice and without
leave to amend.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jennifer N. Littman
George C. Haratsis
Texas Bar No. 08941000
gch@mcdonaldlaw.com
Rory Divin
Texas Bar No. 05902800
rd@mcdonaldlaw.com
Jennifer Littman
Texas Bar No. 00786142
jnl@mcdonaldlaw.com
McDONALD SANDERS,
A Professional Corporation
777 Main Street, Suite 2700
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
(817) 336-8651
(817) 334-0271 Fax
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
LEIGH HOLLAND

DEFENDANT LEIGH HOLLAND’S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF JANE DOE NO. 1 AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

PAGE 7

 Case 3:20-cv-00106-M Document 35 Filed 05/20/20

Page 11 of 11 PageID 825

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned counsel certifies that the above and foregoing Motion to Dismiss
and Brief in Support of Defendant Leigh Holland is being served by electronic mail on all
counsel of record receiving electronic notice from the court’s ECF notification system on
May 20, 2020.
/s/ Jennifer N. Littman
Jennifer N. Littman
I:\09300\0102\14J8988.DOCX

DEFENDANT LEIGH HOLLAND’S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF JANE DOE NO. 1 AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

PAGE 8