Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McCoy v. Amateur Athletic Union of United States Inc.

United States District Court, D. Maryland

January 22, 2015

LANCE MCCOY, Plaintiff,
v.
AMATEUR ATHLETIC UNION OF THE UNITED STATES, INC., Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MARVIN J. GARBIS, District Judge.

The Court has before it Defendant Amateur Athletic Union of the United States, Inc.'s ("AAU") Motion for Summary Judgment [Document 70] and the materials submitted relating thereto. The Court finds a hearing unnecessary.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

The AAU is a non-profit organization incorporated in New York with its principal place of business in Florida. [Document 1]. It "is one of the largest, non-profit, volunteer, sports organizations in the United States.... dedicated exclusively to the promotion and development of amateur sports and physical fitness programs." [Document 76-1] at 1.[1]

The Freddie Hendricks Track Club ("FHTC"), based in Baltimore, Maryland, participated in and hosted AAU track and field events during the relevant times at issue. See [Document 76-5].

In 2007, Plaintiff Lance McCoy ("McCoy") participated as an athlete with the FHTC. Bryant Newmuis ("Newmuis") was a coach for the FHTC. As a coach, Newmuis "stretch[ed] athletes out, help[ed] them with their workouts, and dr[o]ve students to and from practice." [Document 70-19] at 14 (Plaintiff's Answers to Interrogatories).

In June or July 2007, Newmuis transported McCoy to his (Newmuis') house to rest before track practice. McCoy informed Newmuis that he was experiencing pain in his leg. According to McCoy, Newmuis provided McCoy with "ice for [his] leg and then began to massage and molest [him]." Id . Newmuis also sexually assaulted McCoy on other occasions. Am. Compl. ΒΆ 20.

On October 30, 2008, Newmuis was convicted of "Sex Abuse Minor" in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, Case No. 03-K-07-004610."[2]

B. Procedural Posture

1. 2010 Lawsuit

In May 2010, McCoy filed a lawsuit against Newmuis and the FHTC in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, asserting claims of assault, battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, Case No. 24-C-10-004109. [Document 70-3]. Liability was determined against Newmuis and, by default, against the FHTC[3] on liability. The case proceeded to a jury trial on damages.

In October 2011, the jury awarded damages to McCoy of $1, 800, 000.00 against Newmuis and $600, 000.00 against the FHTC. [Documents 70-4, 70-5]. The circuit court, however, granted FHTC's motion to vacate the default judgment and default order entered against it based on defective service. See [Documents 70-6 to 70-10]. In May 2012, the circuit court dismissed McCoy's complaint against the FHTC based on failure to state a claim. [Document 70-12]. The judgment against Newmuis remains in effect.

2. The Instant Lawsuit

In July 2012, McCoy filed a second complaint - the instant lawsuit - against the FHTC in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Case No. 24-C-12-004358, presenting the same claims asserted in the 2010 lawsuit. [Document 2]. McCoy filed an Amended Complaint in April 2013, adding the AAU as a Defendant, and purportedly adding Newmuis as a Defendant. [Document 15].

In the Amended Complaint, McCoy asserts claims in five Counts:

Count I: Respondeat Superior
Count II: Assault
Count III: Battery
Count IV: False Imprisonment
Count V: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ("IIED")

On November 19, 2013, the circuit court dismissed all claims against the FHTC. [Document 50].

Upon dismissal of the FHTC, the AAU removed the case to this Court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. [Document 1]. McCoy filed a Motion to Remand [Document 52] based his having named Newmuis, a Maryland citizen, as a non-diverse defendant The Court denied the motion, stating:

Although Bryant Newmuis, presumably a Maryland citizen, has been named as a defendant in this case, there is no contention that he was ever served with process in the instant case. Moreover, Plaintiff previously obtained a judgment against Mr. Newmuis based upon the same claims against him as are asserted in the instant case. Accordingly, Mr. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.