Doe v. Trails Motions

Case No. 1:24-cv-00253

Document 24: Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Extension Under Rule 9(j)

  • Plaintiff Requests 120-Day Extension to Meet Rule 9(j) Requirements Due to Record Delays and Hurricanes
  • Filed By: Plaintiff (John Doe, M.D.Y.)
  • Filing Date: November 8, 2024

Who’s Involved

  • Plaintiff: John Doe, M.D.Y. – The person suing Trails Academy, saying he was harmed while attending the program.
  • Defendants:
    • Trails Academy, LLC
    • Trails Carolina, LLC
    • Trails Momentum (also called Trails Carolina)
    • Wilderness Training & Consulting, LLC (Family Help & Wellness)
    • WTC Holdco, LLC
    • WTCSL, LLC
  • Attorneys for Plaintiff:
    • Joel R. Rhine (Rhine Law Firm, P.C.)
    • Ruth A. Sheehan (Rhine Law Firm, P.C.)
    • John Bruno (Rhine Law Firm, P.C.)
    • Kimberly A. Dougherty (Justice Law Collaborative)
  • Judge: The judge will decide whether to grant the Plaintiff a 120-day extension under Rule 9(j).

What is the Plaintiff Arguing

  1. An Extension Under Rule 9(j) is Necessary:
    • Rule 9(j) requires a medical expert to review the case and certify whether care met professional standards.
    • The Plaintiff’s expert has reviewed available records and determined that Defendants’ actions did not meet the standard of care.
  2. Good Cause Exists for the Delay:
    • Plaintiff’s attorneys acted diligently in requesting medical records from Defendants and third-party healthcare providers.
    • Despite repeated follow-ups, Defendants provided incomplete or incorrect records, causing delays.
  3. Hurricanes Caused Significant Delays:
    • Hurricanes in North Carolina and Florida disrupted access to important medical records.
    • Providers located in storm-affected regions were unable to process record requests in a timely manner.
  4. The Plaintiff Acted Diligently Despite Challenges:
    • The Plaintiff and their attorneys worked continuously to obtain and review the necessary records.
    • Any delays were not the result of negligence or inaction by the Plaintiff.
  5. Justice Requires Granting the Extension:
    • The case involves serious allegations of harm, abuse, and negligence.
    • Dismissing the case over delays caused by uncontrollable factors would be unjust and unreasonable.

What Does the Plaintiff Want the Judge to Do

  1. Grant a 120-day extension under Rule 9(j) to allow time to meet all necessary legal requirements.
  2. Permit the case to proceed in court instead of being dismissed over procedural delays caused by hurricanes and record issues.

Big Takeaway

The Plaintiff is saying:

  • We worked hard, followed the rules, and did everything possible to meet Rule 9(j) requirements. Delays caused by hurricanes and Defendants’ actions were beyond our control. We’re asking for 120 more days to meet these requirements so our case can move forward fairly.

Document 27: Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Extension Under Rule 9(j)

  • Plaintiff Explains Why They Deserve More Time to Meet Rule 9(j) Requirements Despite Delays and Challenges
  • Filed By: Plaintiff (John Doe, M.D.Y.)
  • Filing Date: November 15, 2024

Who’s Involved

  • Plaintiff: John Doe, M.D.Y. – The person suing Trails Academy, saying he was harmed while attending the program.
  • Defendants:
    • Trails Academy, LLC
    • Trails Carolina, LLC
    • Trails Momentum (also called Trails Carolina)
    • Wilderness Training & Consulting, LLC (Family Help & Wellness)
    • WTC Holdco, LLC
    • WTCSL, LLC
  • Attorneys for Plaintiff:
    • Joel R. Rhine (Rhine Law Firm, P.C.)
    • Ruth A. Sheehan (Rhine Law Firm, P.C.)
    • John Bruno (Rhine Law Firm, P.C.)
    • Kimberly A. Dougherty (Justice Law Collaborative)
  • Judge: The judge will decide whether to grant the Plaintiff extra time under Rule 9(j).

What is the Plaintiff Arguing

  1. The Motion Was Filed on Time:
    • The Plaintiff filed their motion before the statute of limitations expired.
    • Defendants failed to file their opposition on time, which should weaken their argument against the motion.
  2. Rule 9(j) Requirements Were Met:
    • The Plaintiff retained an expert witness to review medical records and provide the required certification.
    • The certification confirms that the care provided by Defendants did not meet professional standards.
  3. Statute of Limitations Should Be Tolled:
    • Delayed Discovery Rule: The Plaintiff didn’t realize the extent of their injuries until after October 11, 2023, following a talk by Paris Hilton on abuse in troubled teen programs.
    • Insanity and Incompetence: Due to trauma, depression, and suicidal ideation caused by the program, the Plaintiff was unable to manage their own affairs after leaving Trails Momentum.
    • Equitable Tolling: The Defendants’ actions, including manipulation, coercion, and delayed release of records, prevented the Plaintiff from understanding their injuries sooner.
  4. Efforts to Obtain Records Were Reasonable:
    • The Plaintiff and their legal team acted diligently to obtain medical records despite delays caused by hurricanes and Defendants providing incorrect or incomplete records.
  5. Justice Would Be Served by Granting the Extension:
    • The case involves serious allegations of harm, abuse, and misconduct.
    • Dismissing the case over procedural delays would be unfair and unjust.

What Do the Plaintiffs Want the Judge to Do

  1. Grant a 120-day extension under Rule 9(j) to meet all necessary requirements.
  2. Allow the case to proceed in court instead of being dismissed due to procedural delays caused by hurricanes and record issues.

Big Takeaway

The Plaintiff is saying:

  • We filed on time, followed the rules, and worked hard to meet the requirements. Delays caused by hurricanes, mental health struggles, and Defendants’ slow response weren’t our fault. We deserve 120 more days to meet the Rule 9(j) requirements and have our case fairly heard in court.

Document 29: Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Extension Under Rule 9(j)

  • Defendants Argue Plaintiff Should Not Receive More Time to Meet Rule 9(j) Requirements Due to Missed Deadlines and Lack of Good Cause
  • Filed By: Defendants (Trails Academy, LLC, Trails Carolina, Wilderness Training & Consulting, and related entities)
  • Filing Date: November 27, 2024

Who’s Involved

  • Plaintiff: John Doe, M.D.Y. – The person suing Trails Academy, alleging harm and abuse during their time in the program.
  • Defendants:
    • Trails Academy, LLC
    • Trails Carolina, LLC
    • Trails Momentum (also called Trails Carolina)
    • Wilderness Training & Consulting, LLC (Family Help & Wellness)
    • WTC Holdco, LLC
    • WTCSL, LLC
  • Attorneys for Defendants:
    • David Levy (Gardner Skelton, PLLC)
    • Kristy M. D’Ambrosio (Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo, LLP)
  • Judge: The judge will decide whether to grant or deny the Plaintiff extra time under Rule 9(j).

What Are Defendants Arguing

  1. The Motion Was Filed Too Late:
    • The Plaintiff waited too long to request medical records and then delayed filing the motion for an extension.
    • The motion was not filed before the statute of limitations expired on June 2, 2024.
  2. Plaintiff Delayed Requesting Records:
    • Plaintiff signed FERPA/HIPAA releases in June 2024 but didn’t formally request records until September 13, 2024.
    • Defendants argue they provided records promptly despite delays caused by Hurricane Helene in September 2024.
  3. Good Cause Does Not Exist:
    • Plaintiff failed to show good cause for why they need more time.
    • The delays were caused by Plaintiff’s inaction, not external circumstances.
  4. Rule 9(j) Compliance is Required:
    • Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s claims qualify as medical malpractice, requiring compliance with Rule 9(j).
    • Plaintiff’s attempts to reframe their claims as ordinary negligence do not remove the requirement to meet Rule 9(j) standards.
  5. Statute of Limitations Has Passed:
    • The statute of limitations expired on June 2, 2024.
    • No valid reason was given for why the Plaintiff could not meet the original deadline.
  6. No Valid Basis for Tolling the Statute of Limitations:
    • The Delayed Discovery Rule does not apply because the Plaintiff has not shown evidence of discovering injuries later.
    • Claims of mental incompetence or insanity preventing timely filing were not sufficiently supported by evidence.
  7. Justice Does Not Require an Extension:
    • Granting an extension would undermine the purpose of Rule 9(j), which is to screen medical malpractice claims efficiently.
    • Defendants argue it would be unfair to allow the case to continue under these circumstances.

What Do the Defendants Want the Judge to Do

  1. Deny the Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension Under Rule 9(j).
  2. Prevent the case from proceeding due to missed deadlines and failure to show good cause.

Big Takeaway

The Defendants are saying:

  • The Plaintiff missed the statute of limitations, delayed requesting records, and failed to show good cause for needing more time. Rule 9(j) must be enforced, and the judge should deny the extension request.

Document 30: Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or Compel Arbitration

  • Plaintiff Argues Why Their Case Should Stay in Court and Not Be Sent to Arbitration
  • Filed By: Plaintiff (John Doe, M.D.Y.)
  • Filing Date: December 30, 2024

Who’s Involved

  • Plaintiff: John Doe, M.D.Y. – The person suing Trails Academy, alleging harm and abuse during their time in the program.
  • Defendants:
    • Trails Academy, LLC
    • Trails Carolina, LLC
    • Trails Momentum (also called Trails Carolina)
    • Wilderness Training & Consulting, LLC (Family Help & Wellness)
    • WTC Holdco, LLC
    • WTCSL, LLC
  • Attorneys for Plaintiff:
    • Joel R. Rhine (Rhine Law Firm, P.C.)
    • Ruth A. Sheehan (Rhine Law Firm, P.C.)
    • John Bruno (Rhine Law Firm, P.C.)
    • Kimberly A. Dougherty (Justice Law Collaborative)
  • Judge: The judge will decide whether the case should be dismissed, sent to arbitration, or allowed to proceed in court.

What is the Plaintiff Arguing

  1. The Arbitration Clause Does Not Apply:
    • The claims made by the Plaintiff are about abuse, harm, and negligence, not just contract issues.
    • The arbitration agreement does not cover these types of claims.
  2. The Arbitration Agreement is Unfair:
    • The agreement was presented in a way that gave the Plaintiff no real choice but to sign it.
    • The terms are one-sided and heavily favor the Defendants.
  3. Not All Defendants are Covered by the Agreement:
    • Some Defendants were not parties to the original contract.
    • The arbitration clause cannot be enforced against entities that didn’t sign the agreement.
  4. FAA Does Not Mandate Arbitration in This Case:
    • The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not automatically apply because the agreement does not clearly cover the Plaintiff’s claims.
  5. Justice Requires a Public Hearing:
    • Arbitration would prevent transparency and accountability for the harm alleged by the Plaintiff.
    • A public trial in court is necessary to address the seriousness of the claims.
  6. Jurisdiction Belongs in Court:
    • The court has the right and responsibility to hear these claims because they fall outside the arbitration clause’s scope.

What Does the Plaintiff Want the Judge to Do

  1. Deny the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Case.
  2. Reject the Request to Send the Case to Arbitration.
  3. Allow the case to continue in court where it can be properly addressed.

Big Takeaway

The Plaintiff is saying:

  • The arbitration agreement doesn’t apply to our claims about abuse and harm. Arbitration is unfair, doesn’t include all the Defendants, and isn’t the right place for this case. We deserve to have our case heard publicly in court.

Document 31: Defendants’ 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss or Otherwise Compel Arbitration

  • Defendants Formally Ask Court to Dismiss Case or Enforce Arbitration Agreement
  • Filed By: Defendants (Trails Academy, LLC, Trails Carolina, Wilderness Training & Consulting, and related entities)
  • Filing Date: December 30, 2024

Who’s Involved

  • Plaintiff: John Doe, M.D.Y. – The person suing Trails Academy, alleging harm and abuse during their time in the program.
  • Defendants:
    • Trails Academy, LLC
    • Trails Carolina, LLC
    • Trails Momentum (also called Trails Carolina)
    • Wilderness Training & Consulting, LLC (Family Help & Wellness)
    • WTC Holdco, LLC
    • WTCSL, LLC
  • Attorneys for Defendants:
    • David Levy (Gardner Skelton, PLLC)
    • Kristy M. D’Ambrosio (Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo, LLP)
  • Judge: The judge will decide if the case should be dismissed or sent to arbitration.

What Are Defendants Arguing

  1. The Arbitration Agreement is Valid:
    • When the Plaintiff joined Trails Momentum, their family signed an enrollment contract that included a binding arbitration clause.
    • This clause states that any disputes must first go through arbitration instead of being resolved in court.
  2. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction:
    • Because of the arbitration agreement, the court does not have the authority to hear this case under Rule 12(b)(1).
  3. The Claims Fall Under the Scope of Arbitration:
    • The agreement explicitly covers any and all disputes arising from the Plaintiff’s enrollment in the program.
    • Claims of abuse, neglect, or harm are still considered disputes under the contract and must go through arbitration.
  4. All Defendants are Covered by the Agreement:
    • Even if some Defendants did not directly sign the arbitration agreement, they are closely related legal entities and are therefore protected under it.
  5. FAA Applies to the Agreement:
    • The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) enforces the arbitration clause because the agreement involves interstate commerce (e.g., travel and payments across state lines).
  6. The Case Cannot Proceed in Court:
    • The Plaintiff cannot sidestep the arbitration agreement by reframing their claims as something outside the contract.

What Do the Defendants Want the Judge to Do

  1. Dismiss the case entirely under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction.
  2. Alternatively, compel arbitration in accordance with the enrollment agreement.
  3. Stay all court proceedings until arbitration is completed.

Big Takeaway

The Defendants are saying:

  • When the Plaintiff signed the enrollment agreement, they agreed to handle any disputes through arbitration. The court does not have jurisdiction to hear this case, and the proper course is to either dismiss the case or send it to arbitration as the contract requires.

Document 32: Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Their 12(B)(1) Motion to Dismiss or Compel Arbitration

  • Defendants Request Court to Dismiss Case or Enforce Arbitration Agreement as Per Enrollment Contract
  • Filed By: Defendants (Trails Academy, LLC, Trails Carolina, Wilderness Training & Consulting, and related entities)
  • Filing Date: December 30, 2024

Who’s Involved

  • Plaintiff: John Doe, M.D.Y. – The person suing Trails Academy, alleging harm and abuse during their time in the program.
  • Defendants:
    • Trails Academy, LLC
    • Trails Carolina, LLC
    • Trails Momentum (also called Trails Carolina)
    • Wilderness Training & Consulting, LLC (Family Help & Wellness)
    • WTC Holdco, LLC
    • WTCSL, LLC
  • Attorneys for Defendants:
    • David Levy (Gardner Skelton, PLLC)
    • Kristy M. D’Ambrosio (Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo, LLP)
  • Judge: The judge will decide if the case should be dismissed or sent to arbitration.

What Are Defendants Arguing

  1. Arbitration Agreement is Valid and Enforceable:
    • The Plaintiff signed an Enrollment Agreement when joining the Trails Momentum program.
    • This agreement includes a mandatory arbitration clause requiring disputes to be resolved outside the court system.
  2. Court Lacks Jurisdiction:
    • The arbitration clause removes the court’s authority to hear the case.
    • Defendants argue that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) governs the agreement and enforces arbitration clauses in contracts.
  3. Claims Fall Under the Scope of Arbitration Agreement:
    • The disputes and allegations brought by the Plaintiff are covered under the terms of the arbitration clause.
    • This includes claims related to negligence, misconduct, and breach of duty.
  4. All Defendants Are Protected by the Agreement:
    • Even though not all Defendants directly signed the arbitration agreement, they are closely related legal entities and are therefore covered under the same agreement.
  5. Plaintiff Cannot Circumvent the Arbitration Clause:
    • Defendants argue that attempts to bypass the arbitration requirement by framing the claims differently (e.g., abuse vs. contract violation) are not valid.
    • The agreement clearly includes all disputes related to the Plaintiff’s time in the program.
  6. FAA Preempts State Law:
    • The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) takes precedence over any conflicting state laws that might prevent arbitration.

What Do the Defendants Want the Judge to Do

  1. Dismiss the case entirely because the court lacks jurisdiction under the arbitration agreement.
  2. If the case is not dismissed, compel the Plaintiff to proceed with arbitration in accordance with the agreement.
  3. Stay any court proceedings until arbitration is completed.

Big Takeaway

The Defendants are saying:

  • When the Plaintiff joined our program, they signed a contract agreeing to arbitration for disputes. The court has no authority to hear this case because arbitration is mandatory under federal law. Therefore, the judge should either dismiss the case entirely or send it to arbitration as the contract requires.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00254

Document 25: Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Their 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss or Compel Arbitration

  • Defendants Argue Jane Doe, L.Y., and June Doe Must Resolve Claims Through Arbitration as Per Enrollment Agreement
  • Filed By: Defendants (Trails Academy, LLC, Trails Carolina, Wilderness Training & Consulting, and related entities)
  • Filing Date: December 30, 2024

Who’s Involved

  • Plaintiffs:
    • Jane Doe, L.Y.
    • June Doe, A.D.
  • Defendants:
    • Trails Academy, LLC
    • Trails Carolina, LLC
    • Trails Momentum (also called Trails Carolina)
    • Wilderness Training & Consulting, LLC (Family Help & Wellness)
    • WTC Holdco, LLC
    • WTCSL, LLC
  • Attorneys for Defendants:
    • David Levy (Gardner Skelton, PLLC)
    • Kristy M. D’Ambrosio (Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo, LLP)
  • Judge: The judge will decide whether the case should be dismissed or moved to arbitration.

What Are Defendants Arguing

  1. The Arbitration Agreement is Valid:
    • Plaintiffs signed an Enrollment Agreement that contains a mandatory arbitration clause.
    • This agreement requires disputes to be resolved through arbitration, not court litigation.
  2. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction:
    • Under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court does not have jurisdiction to hear this case due to the arbitration agreement.
  3. The Claims Are Covered by the Arbitration Clause:
    • The arbitration clause applies to any and all disputes arising from the Plaintiffs’ time in the program.
    • Claims of abuse, harm, and negligence fall within the scope of this agreement.
  4. All Defendants Are Protected by the Arbitration Agreement:
    • Even though not all Defendants signed the agreement, they are closely connected legal entities operating under the same network.
    • The agreement applies to them through legal doctrines like equitable estoppel.
  5. Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) Applies:
    • The FAA mandates enforcement of arbitration agreements in contracts involving interstate commerce.
    • Plaintiffs’ enrollment in the program involved interstate transactions and services, which fall under FAA jurisdiction.
  6. Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid Arbitration Through Legal Framing:
    • Plaintiffs cannot sidestep the arbitration requirement by reframing their claims as something outside the contract.
    • The agreement explicitly includes disputes of this nature.

What Do the Defendants Want the Judge to Do

  1. Dismiss the case entirely under Rule 12(b)(1) due to lack of jurisdiction.
  2. Alternatively, compel the Plaintiffs to proceed with arbitration in accordance with the enrollment agreement.
  3. Stay all court proceedings until arbitration is completed.

Big Takeaway

The Defendants are saying:

  • The Plaintiffs signed an enrollment agreement requiring disputes to be resolved in arbitration. The court doesn’t have jurisdiction, and under federal law, the judge must either dismiss the case or send it to arbitration.