A federal judge from the District of Columbia has dismissed the lawsuit of a college wrestler, who accused American University and several officials within the athletic department of breach of contract, fraud and infliction of emotional distress.
The court found specifically that the claim was time-barred, but did leave the door open for plaintiff Adam LoPiccolo to file a motion for leave to amend the lawsuit.
LoPiccolo claimed in his lawsuit that his former coach, Mark Cody, and other university officials recruited him under the premise that he would receive a full scholarship, only to reverse field a couple years later and offer him a partial scholarship.
The plaintiff also alleged that Cody mistreated him and threatened to revoke his scholarship if he complained. LoPiccolo claimed, for example, that Cody injured him during practice and then forced him to continue practicing in unsanitary conditions with the open wound. The cut ultimately became infected, which LoPiccolo claimed led to a staph infection. However, the doctor allegedly downgraded the diagnosis after speaking with Cody. Further, LoPiccolo said that Cody told him that if he made any reference to a staph infection, that he “could kiss his scholarship goodbye.”
The situation got worse when LoPiccolo was allegedly told in January 2007, after returning from missing several days with the flu, that his scholarship was being revoked. He unsuccessfully appealed the decision to the university.
In addition to the university and Cody, the plaintiff also named the Board of Trustees of American University and Athletic Director Robert Acunto as defendants.
There were five elements in his complaint, including: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, (3) fraud in the inducement, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress.
The impetus for the existing opinion was the defendants’ motion to dismiss, pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). They argued specifically that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
As mentioned above, the proverbial clock started ticking in January 2007 when the plaintiff learned that American was revoking his athletic scholarship.
“The statute of limitations in the District of Columbia for bringing a breach of contract claim is three years,” wrote the court, citing D.C. Code § 12-301 (7).
“Setting aside defendants’ arguments about the defects of the plaintiff’s claims on the merits, the preliminary question to be resolved is whether those claims are time barred, and this turns on the question of when the statute of limitations started to run,” noted the judge. “Under the District of Columbia’s discovery rule, the statute of limitations begins to run when a party becomes aware that he has suffered harm which has been caused by another. Diamond v. Davis, 680 A.2d 364, 372 (D.C. 1996). Other courts in this district, as well as District of Columbia courts, have held that a breach of contract claim accrues when the plaintiff is notified of his or her termination or non-renewal. See Allison v. Howard Univ., 209 F. Supp. 2d 55, 60 (D.D.C. 2002); Harris v. Ladner, 828 A.2d 203, 206 (D.C. 2003); Stephenson v. American Dental Ass’n, 789 A.2d 1248, 1251-52 (D.C. 2002).
“Thus, the statute of limitations for all of the claims began to run at the end of January 2007 when the plaintiff was informed by both defendant Cody and defendant American University that he could no longer wrestle and that his scholarship would not be renewed. Under the three-year statute of limitations, the plaintiff had until January 29, 2010, to file his complaint. Plaintiff did not file his complaint until June 29, 2010 — six months after the deadline. Therefore, Count I for breach of contract is time-barred.”
In addition, the statute of limitations undercut the plaintiff’s remaining claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing (Count II), fraud in the inducement (Count III), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count IV), and negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count V).
The court did leave the door open ever so slightly for the plaintiff, allowing him the opportunity to file a motion to argue for an amended complaint.
“The Court takes no position on the merits,” the court wrote. “But in an exercise of its discretion, it will defer its determination of whether the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims in accordance with this opinion is with or without prejudice until after it has had an opportunity to review the motion, the opposition, and the proposed amended complaint, if one is filed.”
Adam Lopiccolo v. American University, et al.; D.C.; Civil Action No. 11-0834 (ABJ), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1300; 1/5/12
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Ellen B. Flynn, M Celeste Bruce, Lead Attorneys, Rifkin, Livingston, Levitan & Silver, LLC, Bethesda, MD. (for defendants) Hisham R.O. Khalid, Lead Attorney, American University, Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC; Brian M. Spiegel, Pro Hac Vice, Jonathan D. Weiss, Pro Hac Vice, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Philadelphia, PA. Jason S Garber, Lead Attorney, Reger Rizzo & Darnall LLP, Towson, MD; Robert J. Foster, Pro Hac Vice, Reger Rizzo & Darnall LLP, Philadelphia, PA.
