Jane Doe v. Schwerzler
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
2008 WL 1781986 (2008)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
On August 1, 2006, Jane Doe (plaintiff) filed a complaint in federal district court in New Jersey against John Schwerzler, Robert Taffet, Trish Green, Daniel Green, and the Gloucester County Institute of Technology (defendants), alleging violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Doe contended that Schwerzler, her former swim coach, had commenced an improper sexual relationship with her lasting from 1998, when she was 13, until 2004. The other defendants were alleged to be liable for conduct relating to the relationship. All defendants apart from Schwerzler moved to dismiss Doe’s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. The moving defendants were all citizens of New Jersey, where Doe had grown up and her parents continued to reside. On the date she filed her complaint, however, Doe was living in Kentucky, where she attended college. Doe provided evidence that, as of that date, she had registered to vote in Kentucky, acquired a Kentucky driver’s license, rented property and paid utilities in Kentucky, established a bank account there, and paid Kentucky state taxes. Doe also offered evidence in the form of statements by herself, friends, and family members of her intent to remain in Kentucky. The court considered the motion to dismiss.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hillman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.