Shank v. Carleton College

Background

Elizabeth M. Shank sued Carleton College under several federal and Minnesota laws, including Title IX, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, Minnesota’s Social Host Liability statute, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She alleged that Carleton inadequately responded to two sexual assaults by students. The alleged failures included handling of disciplinary proceedings, sanctions, assistance with criminal prosecution, medical assistance, housing, and academic accommodations.

Some claims had previously been dismissed, while Shank’s Title IX claim concerning Carleton’s response to the assaults and her intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim concerning a forced meeting with Student One survived an earlier motion to dismiss. The earlier ruling was by District Judge Patrick Schiltz.

Shank moved to amend her complaint to add punitive damages. At the hearing, she confirmed that she sought punitive damages only for her Minnesota-law claims for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, not for her federal claims. Carleton argued that the motion was untimely, that punitive damages were unavailable for the federal claims, and that Shank had not satisfied Minnesota’s standard for punitive damages.

Legal Standard

The court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, rather than Minnesota Statutes § 549.191, governed the motion to amend. Rule 15 generally directs courts to freely allow amendments when justice requires, although leave may be denied for reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, or futility. Futility means that the proposed amended complaint could not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

The court applied Minnesota Statutes § 549.20 to determine whether Shank plausibly alleged a basis for punitive damages. Under that statute, punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence that the defendant deliberately disregarded the rights or safety of others. At the amendment stage, however, the court examined only whether the proposed complaint plausibly stated such a claim, assumed the factual allegations were true, and did not weigh evidence.

Timeliness

The court determined that the scheduling order’s August 1, 2017 deadline for motions to amend applied to Shank’s motion, which was filed on August 28, 2018. The motion was therefore untimely under the scheduling order.

The court nevertheless found good cause to excuse the late filing. Shank had reasonably believed that she needed to gather additional evidence to satisfy Minnesota’s statutory procedure, which had previously been the prevailing approach in the District of Minnesota. The court also found that Shank had acted diligently and that Carleton had not shown significant prejudice. If necessary, the court stated that limited additional discovery could address any prejudice.

Futility

The court found that Shank plausibly alleged deliberate disregard under Minnesota’s punitive-damages statute. The court relied in part on the earlier conclusion that her allegations plausibly showed deliberate indifference under Title IX and that Carleton’s alleged coercion of a one-on-one meeting with Student One plausibly supported her emotional-distress claim.

The proposed complaint alleged that Carleton required or coerced Shank to meet with Student One despite Department of Education guidance stating that it was improper to require a student reporting sexual harassment or assault to work out the problem directly with the alleged perpetrator. Shank alleged that the meeting caused further trauma and that Carleton’s conduct created a high probability of injury while proceeding with indifference to that risk.

The court emphasized that allowing the amendment did not establish that Shank would ultimately prevail or receive punitive damages. Whether the evidence would satisfy Minnesota’s clear-and-convincing-evidence requirement was left for later proceedings, including possible summary-judgment motions.

Disposition

Judge Hildy Bowbeer granted Shank’s Motion to Amend to Add a Claim for Punitive Damages. Shank was ordered to file the proposed second amended complaint within seven days. Carleton was ordered to meet and confer with Shank about any limited additional discovery and the deadline for dispositive motions, followed by a joint letter to the court within fourteen days. The court stated that it would later enter an amended scheduling order.