klunder v. brown university, 1st cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Klunder v. Brown University, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/26

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1769

J OE KLUNDER,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

BROWN UNI VERSI TY; RUTH SI MMONS, i n her i ndi vi dual andof f i ci al capaci t i es; CARLA HANSEN, i n her i ndi vi dual andof f i ci al capaci t i es; MARGARET KLAWUNN, i n her i ndi vi dual

and of f i ci al capaci t i es; TERRY ADDI SON, i n hi s i ndi vi dualand of f i ci al capaci t i es; J . ALLEN WARD, i n hi s i ndi vi dualand of f i ci al capaci t i es; RI CHARD BOVA, i n hi s i ndi vi dual andof f i ci al capaci t i es; PHI LI P GRUPPUSO, i n hi s i ndi vi dual andof f i ci al capaci t i es; DAVI D KERTZER, i n hi s i ndi vi dual andof f i ci al capaci t i es; YOLANDA CASTI LLO- APPOLLONI O, i n her

i ndi vi dual and of f i ci al capaci t i es,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

ROBERT ENOS, i n hi s i ndi vi dual and of f i ci al capaci t i es,

Def endant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF RHODE I SLAND

[ Hon. Mar y M. Li si , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,

Tor r uel l a and Howar d, Ci r cui t J udges.

Leon A. Bl ai s, wi t h whom Bl ai s & Par ent , was on br i ef f orappel l ant .

J ef f r ey S. Mi chael son, wi t h whomMi chael son & Mi chael son, wason br i ef f or appel l ees.


2/26

Febr uary 3, 2015

-2-


3/26

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Pl ai nt i f f - Appel l ant J oe

Kl under was r emoved f r omBr own Uni ver si t y1 and suspended f or t hree

semest er s af t er a number of st udent s and st af f submi t t ed compl ai nt s

r egar di ng Kl under ' s behavi or . I n r esponse, Kl under f i l ed an

el even- count compl ai nt agai nst Br own Uni ver si t y and numerous

i ndi vi dual s associ at ed wi t h Br own and i t s pol i ce depar t ment

( col l ect i vel y, "Appel l ees") . At t he hear t of Kl under ' s compl ai nt

ar e al l egat i ons t hat Appel l ees' handl i ng of hi s di sci pl i nar y

pr oceedi ng and hi s r emoval f r om campus vi ol at ed bot h hi s

const i t ut i onal r i ght s ( act i onabl e t hr ough 42 U. S. C. 1983) and

Rhode I sl and st at e l aw. The di st r i ct cour t ul t i mat el y ent er ed

j udgment i n f avor of Appel l ees on al l el even cl ai ms, and Kl under

now appeal s. He cont ends that t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed by: ( 1)

f i ndi ng t hat Br own Uni ver si t y was not a st at e act or subj ect t o sui t

under 42 U. S. C. 1983; ( 2) al l owi ng Appel l ees' mot i on t o amend

t hei r answer t o i ncl ude a st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons def ense; and ( 3)

i gnor i ng a Rhode I sl and t ol l i ng st at ut e whi ch woul d have br ought

Kl under ' s cl ai ms wi t hi n t he appl i cabl e t hr ee- year st at ut e of

l i mi t at i ons. Fi ndi ng al l of Kl under ' s ar gument s mer i t l ess, we

af f i r m.

1 The cor por at i on' s f ul l l egal name i s "Br own Uni ver si t y i nProvi dence i n t he St at e of Rhode I sl and and Provi dencePl ant at i ons, " but we wi l l r ef er t o i t as i t i s commonl y ref er r ed - -as ei t her "Br own" or "Br own Uni ver si t y. "

-3-


4/26

I. Background

A. Factual background

I n t he f al l of 2003, Kl under t r avel ed f r om hi s f ami l y

home i n Cal i f orni a t o Rhode I sl and, where he began at t endi ng Br own

as a f r eshman. The t r ansi t i on was not an easy one f or Kl under , who

cl ai ms t o have st r uggl ed wi t h under l yi ng emot i onal condi t i ons, t he

ef f ect s of hi s medi cat i ons, and a per cei ved cul t ur e cl ash bet ween

hi s conser vat i ve upbr i ngi ng i n Cal i f or ni a and t he l i ber al

uni ver si t y set t i ng at Br own.

Dur i ng t he spr i ng semest er of 2005, Br own began t o

r ecei ve a number of compl ai nt s about Kl under ' s behavi or t owards

st udent s and st af f . Fi r st , Car l a Hansen, an Associ at e Dean of

St udent Li f e at Br own, r epor t ed an i nci dent wi t h Kl under i n her

of f i ce i n Apr i l 2005. 2 Accor di ng t o her r epor t , she had a number

of concer ns about t he i nt er act i on and was uncomf or t abl e wi t h

Kl under ' s r emarks about her physi cal appear ance and wi t h hi s

i nt r usi ve quest i ons about t he nat ur e of her physi cal r el at i onshi p

wi t h her same- sex part ner . 3

Then, i n May of 2005, t wo Br own st af f member s r epor t ed

encount er i ng Kl under i n a r est aur ant . Bot h women sai d t hey f el t

2 As Associ ate Dean of St udent Li f e, Dean Hansen appr oved academi cext ensi ons. She i s al so a l i censed soci al wor ker wi t h a pr i vat epsychot herapy pr act i ce.

3 Accor di ng t o Dean Hansen, Kl under sai d he knew "what i t i s l i kewhen I am ki ssi ng my gi r l f r i end, and I f eel my chest agai nst herbr east s, but what does i t f eel l i ke f or you wi t h your gi r l f r i end?"

-4-


5/26

uncomf or t abl e when Kl under i nt er r upt ed t hei r conver sat i on t o ask i f

t hey wer e havi ng "man t r oubl e. " Kl under t hen r epor t edl y

vol unt eer ed unsol i ci t ed i nf or mat i on about a dr unken phone cal l he

had made r ecent l y t o a f or mer gi r l f r i end dur i ng whi ch he eval uat ed

her ski l l at ki ssi ng. One of t he st af f er s repor t ed t hat t hi s was

her second r un- i n wi t h Kl under , who had made i nappr opr i at e comment s

on t he pr evi ous occasi on as wel l .

Af t er r ecei vi ng t hese compl ai nt s, Associ at e Dean of

St udent Li f e Ter r y Addi son wr ot e t o Kl under t o not i f y hi mt hat t he

compl ai nt s woul d be t he subj ect of a hear i ng upon Kl under ' s r et ur n

t o campus i n t he f al l of 2005. Kl under , however , el ect ed not t o

r et ur n t hat f al l due t o unspeci f i ed f ami l y mat t er s. He event ual l y

r et ur ned t o Br own i n t he f al l of 2007, at whi ch poi nt Br own began

t o recei ve new compl ai nt s about Kl under ' s behavi or .

One st udent empl oyee of Br own repor t ed t hat Kl under

appr oached her t o descr i be, unsol i ci t ed, hi s vi ews on t he pr oper

subor di nate rol e of women and a maneuver he used t o t r i ck women

i nt o maki ng out wi t h hi m. Then, on Sept ember 10, 2007, f our

st udent s r epor t ed havi ng a par t i cul ar l y di st ur bi ng conver sat i on

wi t h Kl under . Accor di ng t o t hei r r epor t s, Kl under appr oached t he

unf ami l i ar st udent s and began by compl ai ni ng about " t hat bl ack

[ f r at er ni t y] guy" who had been par t i cul ar l y noi sy t he ni ght bef or e.

Af t er admi t t i ng t o usi ng methamphetami ne, cocai ne, and Adderal l ,

Kl under al l egedl y st at ed t hat he di d not t hi nk t hat he coul d

-5-


6/26

cont r ol hi msel f i f di st ur bed by noi sy st udent s agai n. He

hypot hesi zed t hat i t mi ght be st r ange t o r et ur n t o campus af t er a

suspensi on i f he wer e t o st ab a f el l ow st udent , but t hat he coul d

pl ead di mi ni shed capaci t y t o avoi d ser i ous cr i mi nal char ges.

Kl under i nf or med t he gr oup t hat he had r epeat edl y "beat t he shi t "

out of hi s f at her , and he pr oceeded t o advi se the st udent s t hat i f

t hey shot someone i n Cal i f or ni a, t hey shoul d do i t on t hei r own

pr oper t y, or dr ag t he body t her e af t er t he f act , i n or der t o get a

r educed puni shment .

Af t er r ecei vi ng t hese addi t i onal compl ai nt s, Dean Addi son

sent Kl under a second not i ce sayi ng t hat new compl ai nt s had been

r ecei ved and t hat an i nvest i gat i on woul d t ake pl ace. At t he same

t i me, Mar gar et Kl awunn, t he Associ at e Vi ce Pr esi dent f or Campus

Li f e/ Dean f or St udent Li f e, i ssued an emer gency l et t er st at i ng t hat

t o ensure the saf ety of st udent s and t he communi t y, Kl under woul d

be bar r ed f r om campus ef f ect i ve Sept ember 12, 2007, on an i nt er i m

basi s.

At a meet i ng wi t h Br own admi ni st r ator s on Sept ember 12,

2007, Kl under was t ol d of hi s r emoval f r om campus. Dean Addi son

escor t ed Kl under t o hi s dor mi t or y so he coul d pack hi s t hi ngs.

Af t er war ds, t he pai r wer e j oi ned by Ser geant Rober t Enos of t he

Br own Uni ver si t y Pol i ce Depart ment and Dean J . Al l en Ward. Kl under

al l eges t hat he was or der ed i nt o t he campus pol i ce vehi cl e dr i ven

by Enos and was t aken t o a nearby hot el . He cl ai ms t hat Dean Ward

-6-


7/26

t ol d hi m t hat he coul d not r et ur n t o campus or t o a publ i c st r eet

nei ghbor i ng Br own, and i nst ead t hat he shoul d r emai n at t he hotel

unt i l he coul d f l y home the next day.

Br own combi ned t he compl ai nt s agai nst Kl under f r om2005

and 2007 and schedul ed a non- academi c di sci pl i nary hear i ng f or

November 15, 2007. Kl under f l ew back t o Rhode I sl and f or t he

hear i ng where he was pr ovi ded wi t h a non- l awyer advi sor t o

r epr esent hi mand a package of mat er i al s t hat woul d const i t ut e the

evi dence agai nst hi m. At t he hear i ng, Kl under had t he oppor t uni t y

t o pr esent evi dence and t o cal l and quest i on wi t nesses. He

pr ovi ded a wr i t t en openi ng st atement but chose not t o pr esent any

wi t nesses i n hi s def ense. Af t er t he hear i ng, t he hear i ng of f i cer

pr ovi ded Vi ce Pr esi dent Kl awunn wi t h hi s deci si on. Vi ce Pr esi dent

Kl awunn adopt ed t hi s r ecommendat i on and rendered a f ormal deci si on

f i ndi ng t hat Kl under had vi ol at ed Br own' s Standar ds of Conduct and

suspendi ng hi m f or t hr ee semest er s. Kl under appeal ed t o Br own' s

Provost , who af f i r med t he f i ndi ngs and suspensi on. 4

B. Procedural background

On Oct ober 5, 2010, Kl under f i l ed an el even- count

compl ai nt i n t he di st r i ct cour t of Rhode I sl and. He al l eged, among

ot her t hi ngs, t hat Br own was a per son act i ng under col or of st at e

l aw wi t hi n t he meani ng of 42 U. S. C. 1983, t hat Appel l ees wer e

4 Af t er servi ng hi s suspensi on, Kl under r et ur ned t o Br own andear ned hi s di pl oma.

-7-


8/26

l i abl e f or f ai l i ng t o t r ai n or super vi se i t s empl oyees, and t hat

Appel l ees vi ol at ed Kl under ' s const i t ut i onal r i ght s under t he Fi r st ,

Four t h, Si xth, and Four t eent h Amendment s of t he U. S. Const i t ut i on.

Ot her al l egat i ons i ncl uded cl ai ms of ci vi l conspi r acy, br each of

cont r act , br each of t he covenant of good f ai t h and f ai r deal i ng,

i nt ent i onal i nf l i ct i on of emot i onal di str ess, f al se ar r est, f al se

i mpr i sonment , negl i gence, and br each of t he dut y of conf i dent i al i t y

and l oyal t y.

The par t i es subsequent l y f i l ed cr oss - mot i ons f or summar y

j udgment as t o Count I of t he compl ai nt , whi ch cal l ed f or a

decl ar ator y j udgment t hat Br own qual i f i ed as a st at e act or under

1983. On J ul y 13, 2011, t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed Kl under ' s

mot i on and gr ant ed Appel l ees' mot i on f or summary j udgment i n part .

The cour t r easoned t hat Br own Uni ver si t y i s not a st at e act or but

t hat i t coul d not gr ant summar y j udgment i n i t s ent i r ety because

t her e was i nsuf f i ci ent i nf or mat i on t o det er mi ne whet her t he Br own

Uni ver si t y pol i ce f or ce was act i ng under col or of l aw, t hus

br i ngi ng i t under t he ambi t of 1983.

On Oct ober 16, 2012, Appel l ees f i l ed a mot i on t o di smi ss

ei ght of t he el even count s, pr i mar i l y on st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons

gr ounds. Because Appel l ees had over l ooked t he st atut e of

l i mi t at i ons def ense when pr epar i ng thei r answer t o t he compl ai nt ,

t he mot i on t o di smi ss was f ol l owed t hr ee days l at er by Appel l ees'

mot i on t o amend t he answer t o i ncl ude a st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons

-8-


9/26

def ense. Over Kl under ' s obj ect i ons, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed t he

mot i on t o amend. On November 27, 2012, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed

Appel l ees' mot i on t o di smi ss t wo of t he ei ght count s - - Count s VI I I

and I X, whi ch al l eged f al se ar r est and f al se i mpr i sonment ,

r espect i vel y - - on st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons gr ounds.

Fi nal l y, on May 9, 2013, af t er addi t i onal di scover y and

subst ant i al br i ef i ng f r ombot h par t i es, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed

Appel l ees' mot i on f or summary j udgment as t o al l r emai ni ng count s.

I n a wr i t t en or der , t he cour t expl ai ned t hat Kl under ' s r emai ni ng

1983 cl ai ms, hi s ci vi l conspi r acy cl ai m, and hi s common l aw

br each of t he dut y of conf i dent i al i t y and l oyal t y cl ai m wer e not

t i mel y as t hey wer e f i l ed out si de of t he t hr ee- year st at ut e of

l i mi t at i ons per i od. The cour t al so di smi ssed Kl under ' s cl ai m of

negl i gent or i nt ent i onal i nf l i ct i on of emot i onal di st r ess, as wel l

as hi s br each of cont r act cl ai m, r easoni ng t hat Kl under ' s

al l egat i ons wer e not pr oper l y suppor t ed and t hat Kl under had f ai l ed

t o demonst r at e ent i t l ement t o r el i ef . As to Kl under ' s r emai ni ng

cl ai ms of negl i gence and br each of t he covenant of good f ai t h and

f ai r deal i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t deemed t hem wai ved, not i ng t hat

Kl under had f ai l ed t o respond t o Appel l ees' ar gument s and f ai l ed t o

pr esent any argument of hi s own as t o t hose cl ai ms.

The di st r i ct cour t deni ed Kl under ' s mot i on f or

r econsi der at i on on J une 4, 2013, and t hi s t i mel y appeal f ol l owed.

-9-


10/26

II. Discussion

A. Brown and 1983

Kl under f i r st chal l enges t he di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of

summary j udgment on t he gr ound t hat Br own Uni ver si t y i s not a st ate

act or subj ect t o f eder al j ur i sdi ct i on under 1983. 5 We r evi ew

t hi s r ul i ng de novo, "scr ut i ni z[ i ng] t he f act s i n t he l i ght most

agr eeabl e" t o Kl under and dr awi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n hi s

f avor . Foot e v. Town of Bedf or d, 642 F. 3d 80, 82 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

"We wi l l af f i r monl y i f t he r ecor d, so vi ewed, di scl oses t hat t her e

i s no genui ne i ssue as t o any mat er i al f act and t hat t he movi ng

par t y i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. " Sant i ago v.

Puer t o Ri co, 655 F. 3d 61, 68 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

Sect i on 1983 "pr ovi des a remedy f or depr i vat i ons of

r i ght s secur ed by the Const i t ut i on and l aws of t he Uni t ed St at es

when t hat depr i vat i on t akes pl ace ' under col or of any st at ut e,

or di nance, r egul at i on, cust om, or usage, of any St at e . . . . ' "

Est ades- Negr oni v. CPC Hosp. San J uan Capest r ano, 412 F. 3d 1, 4

( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( quot i ng Lugar v. Edmondson Oi l Co. , 457 U. S. 922,

924 ( 1982) ( quot i ng 1983) ) . "To make out a vi abl e sect i on 1983

cl ai m, a pl ai nt i f f must show bot h t hat t he conduct compl ai ned of

t r anspi r ed under col or of st at e l aw and t hat a depr i vat i on of

5 The di st r i ct cour t never r ul ed on whet her t he Br own Uni ver si t yPol i ce Depar t ment qual i f i ed as a st at e act or , i nst ead di sposi ng oft hose al l egat i ons thr ough t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons. We l i kewi sedecl i ne t o make t hat det er mi nat i on.

-10-


11/26

f eder al l y secur ed r i ght s ensued. " Sant i ago, 655 F. 3d at 68. I t i s

t he "col or of st at e l aw" pr ong t hat i s at i ssue her e.

For Br own t o have act ed under col or of st at e l aw, i t s

"act i ons must be ' f ai r l y at t r i but abl e t o t he St at e. ' " Est ades-

Negr oni , 412 F. 3d at 4 ( quot i ng Lugar , 457 U. S. at 937) . " I n ot her

wor ds, i t must be f ai r t o char act er i ze [ Br own] as [ a] st at e

act or [ ] . " I d. Whi l e t her e i s no di sput e t hat Br own i s a pr i vat e

ent i t y, a pr i vat e par t y can - - i n " r ar e ci r cumst ances" - - be deemed

a st at e act or f or 1983 pur poses i f one of t hr ee t est s i s met .

I d. at 4- 5.

The f i r st t est i s t he st at e compul si on t est . Under t hi s

t est , "a pr i vat e par t y i s f ai r l y char acter i zed as a st at e actor

when t he st ate ' has exer ci sed coer ci ve power or has pr ovi ded such

si gni f i cant encour agement , ei t her over t or cover t , t hat t he

[ chal l enged conduct ] must i n l aw be deemed t o be t hat of t he

St at e. ' " I d. at 5 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) (quot i ng Bl um v.

Yaret sky, 457 U. S. 991, 1004 ( 1982) ) . The second t est - - t he

nexus/ j oi nt act i on t est - - deems a pr i vat e par t y a st at e act or

"wher e an exami nat i on of t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances r eveal s

t hat t he st at e has ' so f ar i nsi nuat ed i t sel f i nt o a posi t i on of

i nt er dependence wi t h t he [ pr i vat e par t y] t hat i t was a j oi nt

par t i ci pant i n [ t he chal l enged act i vi t y] . ' " I d. ( al t er at i ons i n

or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Bass v. Par kwood Hosp. , 180 F. 3d 234, 242 ( 5t h

Ci r . 1999) ) . Fi nal l y, under t he publ i c f uncti on t est , "a pr i vat e

-11-


12/26

par t y i s vi ewed as a st at e actor i f t he pl ai nt i f f est abl i shes t hat ,

i n engagi ng i n t he chal l enged conduct , t he pr i vat e par t y per f or med

a publ i c f unct i on t hat has been ' t r adi t i onal l y t he excl usi ve

pr er ogat i ve of t he St at e. ' " I d. ( quot i ng Bl um, 457 U. S. at 1005) .

Though Kl under never r ef er ences i t by name, hi s ar gument s

i mpl i cat e t he publ i c f unct i on t est . Focusi ng al most ent i r el y on

Br own' s char t er , Kl under ar gues t hat Br own i s a body pol i t i c whi ch

was del egated government al power and aut hor i t y by Engl and, and thus

qual i f i es as a st at e actor . 6

Kl under i s cor r ect t hat Br own' s char t er def i nes i t as a

"body cor por at e and pol i t i c, " but he mi sunder st ands t he t er m' s

i mpor t . Bl ack' s Law cur r ent l y def i nes a body pol i t i c as "[ a] gr oup

of peopl e r egar ded i n a pol i t i cal ( r at her t han pr i vat e) sense and

organi zed under a common government al aut hor i t y. " Bl ack' s Law

Di ct i onary 198 ( 9t h ed. 2009) . However , when Br own' s chart er was

est abl i shed i n t he l ate 1700s, t he "phr ase was used t o mean

cor por at i ons, bot h pr i vat e and publ i c. " Wi l l v. Mi ch. Dep' t of

St at e Pol i ce, 491 U. S. 58, 69 ( 1989) ; see al so Tr s. of Dar t mout h

Col l . v. Woodward, 17 U. S. ( 4 Wheat . ) 518, 524, 657, 701 ( 1819)

( f i ndi ng t hat Dar t mout h Col l ege was a pr i vat e cor por at i on despi t e

bei ng def i ned i n i t s char t er as a "body cor por at e and pol i t i c") .

6 We need not addr ess t he quest i on of whether act i ons by col oni alEngl and coul d est abl i sh t hat an i nst i t ut i on i s a "st at e act or "under t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on because Kl under ' s ar gument sabout Br own' s char t er f ai l on t hei r own t er ms.

-12-


13/26

I ndeed, Rhode I sl and st i l l i nt er pr et s t he t er m t o i ncl ude pr i vat e

cor por at i ons. See, e. g. , Doe v. Gel i neau, 732 A. 2d 43, 45 n. 2, 46

& n. 5 ( R. I . 1999) ( est abl i shi ng t he Roman Cat hol i c Bi shop of

Pr ovi dence as a busi ness cor por at i on t hat "subsi st s as a body

pol i t i c under a speci al denomi nat i on, whi ch i s r egar ded i n l aw as

havi ng a per sonal i t y and exi st ence di st i nct f r om t hat of i t s

sever al member s" ) ; Par dey v. Boul evar d Bi l l i ar d Cl ub, 518 A. 2d

1349, 1354 ( R. I . 1986) ( "[ A] r t i f i ci al [ per sons] ar e such as ar e

cr eat ed and devi sed by human l aws f or t he pur poses of soci ety and

gover nment , whi ch ar e cal l ed cor por at i ons or bodi es pol i t i c. "

( quot i ng 1 Bl ackst one, Comment ar i es *123) ) ; Wi ng v. Sl at er , 35 A.

302, 303 ( R. I . 1896) ( st at i ng t hat a cor por at i on i s a body

pol i t i c) .

Whi l e we assume ar guendo t hat a body pol i t i c may be a

st at e act or , we agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t he desi gnat i on

i s not det er mi nat i ve but r at her t hat " t he f act s and ci r cumst ances

par t i cul ar t o t he speci f i c cor por at e ent i t y" det er mi ne whet her a

cor por at e body pol i t i c i s a pr i vat e cor por at i on or a st at e act or

subj ect t o f eder al j ur i sdi ct i on under 1983. See al so Kennel l y v.

Kent Cnt y. Water Aut h. , 89 A. 2d 188, 191 ( R. I . 1952)

( "Not wi t hst andi ng t hat [ t he st at ut e cr eat i ng t he Kent Count y Wat er

Aut hor i t y] descri bes t he boar d as a ' body pol i t i c, ' . . . and

decl ar es t hat i n exer ci si ng i t s power s i t ' wi l l be per f or mi ng an

essent i al gover nment al f unct i on, ' such l anguage by i t sel f i s not

-13-


14/26

ef f ect i ve t o cl ot he t he Aut hor i t y wi t h t he di st i ngui shi ng

char act er i st i cs of a muni ci pal or quasi - muni ci pal cor por at i on. ") .

Here, t he f act s and ci r cumst ances make cl ear t hat Br own

Uni ver si t y i s not per f or mi ng a publ i c f unct i on t hat has been

"t r adi t i onal l y t he excl usi ve pr er ogat i ve of t he St at e, " t hus

t r ansf or mi ng i t i nt o a st at e act or . Br own' s char t er grant s Br own

"f ul l l i ber t y, power , and aut hor i t y . . . t o f ound a Col l ege or

Uni ver si t y wi t hi n [ Rhode I sl and] , f or pr omot i ng t he l i ber al ar t s

and uni ver sal l i t er at ur e. " Br own Uni ver si t y, The Char t er of Br own

Uni ver si t y wi t h Amendment s and Notes 8 ( 1945) , avai l abl e at

ht t p: / / www. br own. edu/ about / admi ni st r at i on/ cor por at i on/ si t es/ br own

. edu. about . admi ni st r at i on. cor por at i on/ f i l es/ upl oads/ char t er - of - br

own- uni ver si t y. pdf ( her ei naf t er "Br own' s Char t er ") . Educat i on,

especi al l y secondar y and col l egi at e educat i on, i s not , and never

has been, excl usi vel y mai nt ai ned by t he st at e. See Rendel l - Baker

v. Kohn, 457 U. S. 830, 842 ( 1982) ( hol di ng t hat t he educat i on of

mal adj ust ed hi gh school st udent s, al t hough a publ i c f unct i on, i s

not t he excl usi ve pr er ogat i ve of t he st at e) ; Ber r os v. I nt er Am.

Uni v. , 535 F. 2d 1330, 1333 ( 1st Ci r . 1976) ( "Hi gher educat i on i s

not gener al l y regar ded as excl usi vel y a f unct i on ' t r adi t i onal l y

associ at ed wi t h sover ei gnt y. ' ") ; cf . Ci t y of Pawt ucket v. Sundl un,

662 A. 2d 40, 50 ( R. I . 1995) ( " I t i s t hus cl ear t hat t he Gener al

Assembl y' s pl enar y and excl usi ve power over publ i c educat i on i n

-14-


15/26

Rhode I sl and has not changed si nce the adopt i on of t he St ate

Const i t ut i on i n 1842. " ( emphasi s added) ) .

And whi l e Kl under f ocuses on Br own' s aut hor i t y to

l egi sl at e, t o "r egul at e, or der , and gover n t he same, " Br own' s

Char t er at 8, and t o "make, enact and publ i sh al l such l aws,

st at ut es, r egul at i ons, and or di nances, wi t h penal t i es, " i d. at 14,

t hi s aut hor i t y i s cl ear l y l i mi t ed t o Br own' s sel f - gover nance t o

mai nt ai n i t sel f as an educat i onal i nst i t ut i on. For exampl e, a f ul l

r eadi ng of t he par agr aph f r om whi ch Kl under sel ect i vel y quot es

makes obvi ous t hat t he phr ase " t he same" i n Br own' s aut hor i t y to

"r egul at e, or der , and gover n" r ef er s t o Br own' s " f ul l l i ber t y,

power , and aut hor i t y . . . t o f ound a Col l ege or Uni ver si t y wi t hi n

t hi s Col ony, f or pr omot i ng t he l i ber al ar t s and uni ver sal

l i t er at ur e. " See i d. at 8. Mor eover , whi l e t he char t er per mi t s

Br own to convene "t wo br anches" i n or der t o "make, enact and

publ i sh al l such l aws, st at ut es, r egul at i ons, and or di nances, wi t h

penal t i es, " i d. at 13- 14, t hi s abi l i t y i s l i mi t ed t o "t he

successf ul i nst r uct i on and gover nment of sai d Col l ege or

Uni ver si t y, " i d. at 14.

Thus, cont r ar y t o Kl under ' s asser t i ons, t he char t er does

not br oadl y del egat e l egi sl at i ve r esponsi bi l i t y t o Br own. Cf .

Dar t mout h Col l . , 17 U. S. at 631- 32, 636, 638 ( f i ndi ng t hat

Dar t mout h' s abi l i t y t o gover n i t sel f and act t o pr omot e i t s

educat i onal pur pose di d not r ender i t a publ i c i nst i t ut i on) .

-15-


16/26

Kl under ' s r el at ed ar gument t hat Br own' s di sci pl i nar y

syst em was a del egat i on of j udi ci al gover nment al f unct i ons i s

l i kewi se f aul t y. As a gener al mat t er , pr i vat e school s ar e r un

pr i vat el y, wi t hout gover nment al i nt er f er ence i n t he school s'

i nt er nal admi ni st r at i on. See Asoci aci n de Educaci n Pr i vada de

P. R. , I nc. v. Gar c a- Padi l l a, 490 F. 3d 1, 15 ( 1st Ci r . 2007)

( "Thus, Rul e 11 i nt er f er es wi t h aut onomous deci si onmaki ng by

pr i vat e school s and i nt r udes upon t hei r f r eedom t o pur sue t hei r

academi c obj ect i ves wi t hout i nt er f er ence f r om t he gover nment . " ) ;

see al so Zel man v. Si mmons- Harr i s, 536 U. S. 639, 701 n. 9

( 2002) ( Sout er , J . , di ssent i ng) ( di ssent i ng on a separ at e i ssue and

not i ng - - wi t hout di sagr eement by the maj or i t y - - t hat pr i vat e

school s " are aut onomousl y managed wi t hout any i nt er f erence f r omt he

. . . St at e" ) . We see no r eason t hat t hi s aut onomy shoul d excl ude

i nt er nal di sci pl i nar y measures and pr oceedi ngs. See Kr ohn v.

Har var d Law Sch. , 552 F. 2d 21, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 1977) ( f i ndi ng t hat t he

r ecei pt of st at e f i nanci al assi st ance, t he r egul at i on by a publ i c

accr edi t at i on counci l , and t he aut hor i t y of t hat counci l t o over see

di sci pl i nar y pr ocedur es "wer e i nsuf f i ci ent at t r i but es of gover nment

i nvol vement t o r ender t he uni ver si t y' s di sci pl i nar y pr oceedi ngs

' st at e act i on' f or sect i on 1983 pur poses" ) ; see al so Doe v. Heck,

327 F. 3d 492, 523 ( 7t h Ci r . 2003) ( "The r i ght of par ent s t o

di sci pl i ne t hei r chi l dren . . . precl ude[ s] s t at e of f i ci al s f rom

i nt er f er i ng wi t h t he r i ght of par ent s . . . t o del egat e t he

-16-


17/26

aut hor i t y t o [ di sci pl i ne t hei r chi l dr en] t o pr i vat e school

of f i ci al s . . . . ") ; Al ber t v. Car ovano, 851 F. 2d 561, 571 ( 2d Ci r .

1988) ( "Hami l t on' s deci si on t o suspend t he appel l ant s ' ul t i mat el y

t ur n[ ed] on . . . [ a] j udgment made by [ a] pr i vat e par t [ y]

accor di ng t o pr of essi onal st andar ds t hat wer e not est abl i shed by

t he st at e. ' I t t hus cannot be st at e acti on. " (al t er at i ons i n

or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) .

Thus, Br own' s di sci pl i ne of Kl under i n no way qual i f i es

as j udi ci al del egat i on by t he st at e.

Because nei t her pr i vat e educat i on, cor por at e sel f -

gover nance, nor i nt er nal di sci pl i ne qual i f i es as st at e act i on, and

because t here has been no del egat i on of any government al f unct i ons

t o Br own - - ei t her at t he t i me of Br own' s char t er or i n t he l ast

250 year s - - Br own cannot be cl assi f i ed as a pr i vat e par t y

per f or mi ng a publ i c f unct i on t hat has been "' t r adi t i onal l y the

excl usi ve pr er ogat i ve of t he St at e. ' " See Est ades- Negr oni , 412

F. 3d at 5 ( quot i ng Bl um, 457 U. S. at 1005) . Wi t h no act i on

"' f ai r l y at t r i but abl e t o t he St at e, ' " Br own i s not act i ng under

col or of st at e l aw, and t hus Kl under has f ai l ed t o show t hat Br own

i s subj ect t o f eder al j ur i sdi ct i on under 1983. See i d. at 4

( quot i ng Lugar , 457 U. S. at 937) .

Thi s concl usi on i s suppor t ed by our deci si on i n Kr ohn,

whi ch, cont r ar y t o Kl under ' s asser t i ons, i s hi ghl y anal ogous. I n

Kr ohn, we were conf r ont ed wi t h t he quest i on of whether Harvar d Law

-17-


18/26

School was subj ect t o f eder al j ur i sdi ct i on under 1983. Fi ndi ng

t hat i t was not , we hel d t hat

[ Kr ohn] has f ai l ed t o show a suf f i ci entpr esent day r el at i onshi p between Harvar d and

t he Commonweal t h t o t r eat t he school as apubl i c i nst i t ut i on subj ect t o f eder alj ur i sdi ct i on i n a 42 U. S. C. 1983 sui t . Tohol d ot her wi se woul d serve onl y t o di sr upt t hel ess anci ent l y est abl i shed bal ance of r i ght sand dut i es Harvar d assumes as a pr i vat eeducat i onal i nst i t ut i on i n Massachuset t s.. . . Har var d has been f or at l east onehundr ed years and cont i nues t o be t r eat ed as apr i vat e educat i onal i nst i t ut i on i n t he whol er ange of i t s l egal and educat i onal r el at i onsand act i vi t i es by bot h t he pr i vat e and publ i csect or s i n Massachuset t s. I t i s consi der ed byal l r easonabl e per sons t o be a pr i vat eeducat i onal i nst i t ut i on . . . .

Kr ohn, 552 F. 2d at 23. Li ke Har var d' s r el at i onshi p wi t h

Massachuset t s, Br own' s r el at i onshi p wi t h Rhode I sl and i n no way

suggest s t hat Br own shoul d be t r eat ed as a publ i c i nst i t ut i on.

Br own was f ounded by pr i vat e ci t i zens and wi t h pr i vat e f unds, and,

l i ke Har var d, has hi st or i cal l y been and pr esent l y i s t r eat ed as a

pr i vat e educat i onal i nst i t ut i on by bot h t he pr i vat e and publ i c

sect or s. Mor eover , Har var d, l i ke Br own, i s def i ned i n i t s char t er

as a body pol i t i c. Compare The Char t er of 1650, i n The Devel opment

of Har var d Uni ver si t y si nce t he I nqaugur at i on [ si c] of Pr esi dent

El i ot , 1869- 1929 6 ( Samuel El i ot Mor i son ed. , 1930) , avai l abl e at

ht t p: / / abel . har var d. edu/ hi st or y/ char t er / i ndex. ht ml ( "one body

pol i t i que and Cor por at e i n Lawe") , wi t h Br own' s Char t er at 7 ( "one

body cor por at e and pol i t i c") .

-18-


19/26

Seei ng no meani ngf ul di st i nct i on between Br own i n t he

pr esent case and Har var d i n Kr ohn, we agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t

t hat Br own Uni ver si t y i s not a st at e act or subj ect t o f eder al

j ur i sdi ct i on under 1983. Br own' s mot i on f or par t i al summar y

j udgment was proper l y grant ed.

B. The Statute of Limitations

The di st r i ct cour t di sposed of t he r emai nder of Kl under ' s

cl ai ms7 on st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons gr ounds. On appeal , Kl under

r ai ses t wo ar gument s. Fi r st , he al l eges t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

i mpr oper l y gr ant ed Appel l ees' mot i on t o amend t he answer t o i ncl ude

a st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons def ense. Second, he ar gues t hat even i f

t he answer was proper l y amended, hi s cl ai ms were not t i me bar r ed

due t o t he t ol l i ng pr ovi si on i n Rhode I sl and Gener al Laws sect i on

9- 1- 18. We addr ess each i n t ur n.

1. The Motion to Amend

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o gr ant

Appel l ees' mot i on t o amend i t s answer t o i ncl ude t he st at ut e of

7 Kl under ' s br i ef "asks t hat t hi s cour t vacat e al l j udgment s ofdi smi ssal , " whi ch woul d seemi ngl y i ncl ude Count V ( Br each ofCont r act ) , Count VI ( Br each of t he Covenant of Good Fai t h and Fai rDeal i ng) , Count VI I ( I nf l i ct i on of Emot i on Di st r ess) , Count X( Negl i gence) , and Count XI ( Br each of t he Dut y of Conf i dent i al i t yand Loyal t y) . The di st r i ct cour t grant ed Br own' s mot i on f or

summar y j udgment on Count s V, VI , VI I , and XI ( wi t h r espect t o t hest at utor y component ) based on t he mer i t s and on Count X based onwai ver . Kl under ' s br i ef makes no ar gument s as t o t hese count s, sot o the extent he i nt ended t o appeal t hose rul i ngs, hi s cl ai ms arewai ved. See Wei Feng Li u v. Hol der , 714 F. 3d 56, 61 ( 1st Ci r .2013) ( " [ Pet i t i oner ] pr esent s no ar gument as t o why t he deci si onsbel ow wer e i n er r or , and t he i ssue i s t hus wai ved. " ) .

-19-


20/26

l i mi t at i ons def ense f or abuse of di scret i on. I nt er st at e Li t ho

Cor p. v. Br own, 255 F. 3d 19, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) . That deci si on

"wi l l be l ef t unt ouched" so l ong as " ' t he r ecor d evi nces an

ar guabl y adequat e basi s f or t he cour t ' s deci si on. ' " J ur ez v.

Sel ect Por t f ol i o Ser vi ci ng, I nc. , 708 F. 3d 269, 276 ( 1st Ci r . 2013)

( quot i ng Hat ch v. Dep' t f or Chi l dr en, 274 F. 3d 12, 19 ( 1st Ci r .

2001) ) .

Rul e 15 of t he Feder al Rul es of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e gover ns

amendment s t o pl eadi ngs, and i t i nst r uct s cour t s t o "f r eel y gi ve

l eave" t o amend. Fed. R. Ci v. P. 15( a) ( 2) . As t he Supr eme Cour t

expl ai ned,

I n t he absence of any appar ent or decl ar edr eason - - such as undue del ay, bad f ai t h ordi l at or y mot i ve on t he par t of t he movant ,r epeat ed f ai l ur e t o cur e def i ci enci es byamendment s pr evi ousl y al l owed, undue pr ej udi cet o t he opposi ng par t y by vi r t ue of al l owanceof t he amendment , f ut i l i t y of amendment , etc.- - t he l eave sought shoul d, as t he r ul esr equi r e, be "f r eel y gi ven. "

Foman v. Davi s, 371 U. S. 178, 182 ( 1962) ; see al so I nt er st at e Li t ho

Cor p. , 255 F. 3d at 25; Acost a- Mest r e v. Hi l t on I nt ' l of P. R. , I nc. ,

156 F. 3d 49, 51 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) .

We f i nd no er r or i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o

per mi t t he amendment . I n r evi ewi ng a di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on on

whether or not t o gr ant an amendment , we rout i nel y f ocus our

anal ysi s on t he pr ej udi ce t o t he non- movi ng par t y. See, e. g. ,

I nt er st at e Li t ho Cor p. , 255 F. 3d at 25- 26 ( "[ Pl ai nt i f f ] . . . does

-20-


21/26

not i dent i f y any prej udi ce . . . . I ndeed, [ Pl ai nt i f f ' s ] t r i al

pr eparat i on on t he mer i t s i ssues coul d hardl y have been much

di f f er ent . . . . ") ; Hayes v. New Eng. Mi l l wor k Di st r i bs. , I nc. ,

602 F. 2d 15, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 1979) ( " [ C] our t s may not deny an

amendment sol el y because of del ay and wi t hout consi derat i on of t he

pr ej udi ce t o t he opposi ng par t y . . . . ") . Most of t en, t hi s

pr ej udi ce t akes t he f or m of addi t i onal , pr ol onged di scover y and a

post ponement of t r i al . See, e. g. , Acost a- Mest r e, 156 F. 3d at 52

( "[ T] he pr ej udi ce t o Hi l t on r esul t i ng f r om a r e- openi ng of

di scover y wi t h addi t i onal cost s, a si gni f i cant post ponement of

t r i al , and a l i kel y maj or al t er at i on i n t r i al st r at egy and t acti cs

. . . f ul l y suppor t t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ul i ng [ t o deny a mot i on

f or l eave t o amend] . " ) ; St epani schen v. Mer chs. Despat ch Transp.

Cor p. , 722 F. 2d 922, 933 ( 1st Ci r . 1983) ( " [ T] he addi t i on of new

cl ai ms woul d l i kel y have r equi r ed addi t i onal di scover y and caused

f ur t her del ay. ") ; J ohnst on v. Hol i day I nns, I nc. , 595 F. 2d 890, 896

( 1st Ci r . 1979) ( af f i r mi ng deni al of mot i on t o amend wher e f i ve

years had passed si nce t he compl ai nt was f i l ed, a memorandum

opi ni on and j udgment had al r eady been ent ered, and the def endant s

"woul d be pr ej udi ced by the di f f i cul t y and expense requi r ed i n

l ocat i ng essent i al wi t nesses f or t r i al ") .

Her e, Kl under f ai l s t o est abl i sh pr ej udi ce. Though he

cl ai ms that "knowl edge of t he def ense of st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons

woul d have i mpact ed Pl ai nt i f f ' s di scover y st r at egy, " he f ai l s t o

-21-


22/26

expl ai n how. To t he cont r ar y, t he r ecor d suggest s t he opposi t e.

At t he t i me t he mot i on t o amend was f i l ed, di scover y was ongoi ng.

Kl under had onl y taken t wo deposi t i ons, and subsequent l y t ook

ot her s, and t hus had ampl e oppor t uni t y - - al most t wo mont hs - - t o

expl or e t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons quest i on. Addi t i onal l y, not hi ng

pr event ed Kl under f r om ut i l i zi ng t he var i ous di scover y tool s

af f or ded t o al l l i t i gant s - - i nt er r ogat or i es, r equests f or

pr oduct i on of document s, subpoenas, et c. - - t o obt ai n i nf or mat i on

t o r ebut t he def ense. And, i f Kl under r eal l y di d f eel t hat he

l acked suf f i ci ent t i me t o expl or e t he i ssue, he coul d have sought

ext ensi ons of t he di scovery and summary j udgment deadl i nes. That

he decl i ned t o empl oy any of t hese opt i ons i s hi s own deci si on and

not t he f aul t of Br own.

Gi ven Rul e 15' s l i ber al pol i cy and t he l ack of

demonst r abl e pr ej udi ce t o Kl under , we cannot say t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t abused i t s di scr et i on i n gr ant i ng t he mot i on t o amend. 8

8 Though t he deci si on on whether or not t o grant a mot i on t o amendi s a case- speci f i c, f act- based det er mi nat i on, i t i s t el l i ng t hatwhen f aced wi t h t hi s quest i on i n si mi l ar ci r cumst ances, a number ofour si st er ci r cui t s have al so f ound i t pr oper f or t he di st r i ctcour t t o gr ant a mot i on t o amend to i ncl ude a st atut e ofl i mi t at i ons def ense. See Byl i n v. Bi l l i ngs, 568 F. 3d 1224, 1230( 10t h Ci r . 2009) ( f i ndi ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t sdi scr et i on i n per mi t t i ng t he amendment t o i ncl ude a st at ut e of

l i mi t at i ons def ense wher e pl ai nt i f f s " r ecei ved adequat e not i ce oft he st at ut e- of - l i mi t at i ons def ense and had ampl e oppor t uni t y t or espond") ; Bi r el i ne v. Seagondol l ar , 567 F. 2d 260, 262 ( 4t h Ci r .1977) ( "We f i nd no cl ear er r or i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s al l owance ofdef endant s' mot i on t o amend t hei r answer t o asser t t he appl i cabl est at ut e of l i mi t at i ons. " ) ; Emi ch Mot or s Cor p. v. Gen. Mot or s Cor p. ,229 F. 2d 714, 717- 18 ( 7t h Ci r . 1956) ( f i ndi ng no abuse of

-22-


23/26

2. The Tolling Statute

Kl under next ar gues t hat even i f Appel l ees' answer was

pr oper l y amended t o i ncl ude t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons def ense, t he

def ense di d not bar hi s cl ai ms due t o t he t ol l i ng pr ovi si on i n

Rhode I sl and Gener al Laws sect i on 9- 1- 18. We r evi ew t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s deci si ons on t hi s i ssue de novo. See Mont al vo v. Gonzl ez-

Ampar o, 587 F. 3d 43, 46 (1st Ci r . 2009) ; Lpez- Gonzl ez v.

Muni ci pal i t y of Comer o, 404 F. 3d 548, 551 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) .

Sect i on 9- 1- 18 pr ovi des, i n r el evant par t , t hat

[ i ] f any per son agai nst whomt her e i s or shal lbe cause f or any act i on, as enumerat ed i n t hi schapt er , i n f avor of a r esi dent of t he st at e,shal l at t he t i me the cause accr ues be out si det he l i mi t s of t he st at e, or bei ng wi t hi n t hest at e at t he t i me t he cause accr ues shal l goout of t he st at e bef or e t he act i on i s bar r edby t he pr ovi si ons of t hi s chapt er , and doesnot have or l eave pr oper t y or est at e i n t hest at e that can be at t ached by pr ocess of l aw,t hen t he per son ent i t l ed t o t he act i on may

commence t he act i on, wi t hi n t he t i me bef orel i mi t ed, af t er t he per son has r et ur ned i nt ot he st ate i n such a manner t hat an act i on may,wi t h r easonabl e di l i gence, be commencedagai nst hi m or her by the per son ent i t l ed t ot he act i on . . . .

R. I . Gen. Laws 9- 1- 18. I n suppor t of hi s ar gument , Kl under

r el i es on Cot t r el l v. Kenney, a 1903 Rhode I sl and Supr eme Cour t

case whi ch hol ds t hat , i f appl i cabl e, t he ef f ect of t he t ol l i ng

st at ut e i s t hat "a new t i me i s f i xed at whi ch t he st at ut e begi ns t o

di scr et i on wher e di st r i ct cour t per mi t t ed an amendment t o i ncl udea st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons def ense af t er t he case was r ever sed andr emanded on appeal ) .

-23-


24/26

r un . . . when t he def endant comes or r et ur ns i nt o t he st at e. " 54

A. 1010, 1012 ( R. I . 1903) . Cot t r el l , however , pr ovi des no gui dance

on t he st at ut e' s appl i cabi l i t y. For t hat , one must l ook t o Rouse

v. Connel l y, 444 A. 2d 850 ( R. I . 1982) . Ther e, t he Rhode I sl and

Supr eme Cour t adopt ed t he t r i al j ust i ce' s f i ndi ng t hat sect i on

9- 1- 18 pr ovi des " speci al pr ot ect i on" t o Rhode I sl and pl ai nt i f f s who

wer e i nj ur ed by def endant s not amenabl e t o pr ocess. I d. at 851.

I t expl ai ned t hat i f a "def endant i s amendabl e t o sui t by

subst i t ut ed ser vi ce, " t he st at ut e does not appl y and t he

l i mi t at i ons per i od i s not t ol l ed. I d. The cour t emphasi zed t hat

any ot her i nt er pr et at i on "woul d per mi t t he unnecessar y and

i ndef i ni t e post ponement of l awsui t s . . . , a r esul t cl ear l y

cont r ar y t o sound pr i nci pl es of j udi ci al admi ni st r at i on. " I d. at

851- 52.

Under t hi s f r amewor k, Kl under ' s argument f ai l s f or

numer ous r easons. Fi r st , t he st at ut e onl y pr ot ect s Rhode I sl and

pl ai nt i f f s. See i d. Though Kl under cl ai ms he was a r esi dent of

Rhode I sl and at t he t i me the causes of act i on accr ued ( and i ndeed

he ver y l i kel y may have been one) , t her e i s no evi dence i n t he

r ecor d t o suppor t ( or r ej ect ) t hi s cont ent i on. The bur den i s on

Kl under t o est abl i sh t he appl i cabi l i t y of sect i on 9- 1- 18, so hi s

f ai l ur e t o suppor t hi s cl ai m of r esi dency i s f at al . See Kel l y v.

Mar cant oni o, 187 F. 3d 192, 198 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ( "[ P] l ai nt i f f -

appel l ant s bear t he bur den of pr ovi ng t he appl i cabi l i t y of t he

-24-


25/26

t ol l i ng pr ovi si ons cont ai ned i n [ R. I . Gen. Laws] 9- 1- 19 and 9- 1-

20. " ) ; Boni l l a- Avi l s v. Sout hmar k San J uan, I nc. , 992 F. 2d 391,

393 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ( "Si nce t he pl ai nt i f f s have t he bur den t o

suppor t t hei r cl ai m t hat t he st at ut e was t ol l ed, t hei r f ai l ur e t o

i nt r oduce i nt o t he r ecor d t he l et t er s upon whi ch t hey based t hat

cl ai m was f at al t o t hat cl ai m. " ) . Second, t her e i s no evi dence i n

t he r ecor d t hat any Appel l ees were not amenabl e t o pr ocess . See

Rouse, 444 A. 2d at 851. To t he cont r ar y, t he r ecor d suggest s t hat

al l Appel l ees wer e ser ved and appear ed bef or e the di st r i ct cour t

wi t hout any di f f i cul t y. I t was Kl under ' s obl i gat i on t o est abl i sh

ot her wi se, and, once agai n, he f ai l ed t o do so. See Kel l y, 187

F. 3d at 198; Boni l l a- Avi l s, 992 F. 2d at 393.

Because sect i on 9- 1- 18 does not t ol l Kl under ' s cl ai ms, he

was r equi r ed t o f i l e sui t wi t hi n t hr ee year s of , at t he l at est ,

Sept ember 12, 2007, f or t he 1983, ci vi l conspi r acy, and br each of

t he dut y of conf i dent i al i t y and l oyal t y cl ai ms, and Sept ember 13,

2007, f or t he f al se ar r est and f al se i mpr i sonment cl ai ms. 9 He di d

not do so. I nst ead, Kl under wai t ed unt i l Oct ober 5, 2010, t hr ee

weeks af t er t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons r an. Kl under ' s cl ai ms,

t her ef or e, ar e t i me bar r ed, and t he di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y

di sposed of t hemon Appel l ees' mot i ons t o di smi ss and f or summary

j udgment .

9 The par t i es agr ee t hat t he appl i cabl e st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons f orKl under ' s cl ai ms i s t hr ee years and t hat Sept ember 12 and 13, 2007,ar e t he r el evant dat es.

-25-


26/26

III. Conclusion

I n sum, we f i nd no er r or s by t he di st r i ct cour t . Br own

Uni ver si t y i s not subj ect t o f eder al j ur i sdi ct i on under 1983

because nei t her i t s abi l i t y t o enact i nt er nal st at ut es and

r egul at i ons i n f ur t her ance of i t s f unct i on as a pr i vat e educat i onal

i nst i t ut i on nor i t s abi l i t y t o di sci pl i ne student s f or vi ol at i ons

of i t s i nt er nal pol i ci es consti t ut e stat e act i on. Addi t i onal l y,

t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s di scret i on i n gr ant i ng Br own' s

mot i on t o amend i t s answer t o i ncl ude a st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons

def ense i n l i ght of t he l ack of demonst r abl e pr ej udi ce t o Kl under .

Havi ng been pr oper l y added t o Br own' s answer , t he def ense bars

Kl under ' s cl ai ms, as t hey wer e f i l ed out si de of Rhode I sl and' s

t hr ee- year st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons and Rhode I sl and Gener al Laws

sect i on 9- 1- 18 i s i nappl i cabl e t o t ol l t he cl ai ms.

AFFIRMED.

-26-

klunder v. brown university, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents