Case 3:20-cv-00106-M Document 56 Filed 08/20/20

Page 1 of 7 PageID 1356

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JANE DOE NO. 1, JANE DOE NO. 2,
JANE DOE NO. 3,

§
§
§
Plaintiffs,
§
§
v.
§
§
TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY, DR.
§
DIANE SNOW, DR. ANDREW
§
SCHOOLMASTER, DR. ROB GARNETT, §
DR. DARRON TURNER, RUSSELL
§
MACK, LEIGH HOLLAND, and AARON §
CHIMBEL,
§
§
Defendants.
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-cv-00106-M

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO MODIFY
SCHEDULING ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR JOINDER OF PARTIES
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW Plaintiffs, Jane Doe No. 1, Jane Doe No. 2 and Jane Doe No. 3 and file
their Opposed Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Extend Deadline for Joinder of Parties for
forty-five (45) days, or until the resolution of Defendants’ pending Motions to Dismiss as
authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) and in support thereof show the Court as
follows:
A. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Jane Does Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are African-American women who have filed suit
against Defendants Texas Christian University (“TCU”), Dr. Diane Snow, Dr. Andrew

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSED MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR JOINDER OF PARTIES

PAGE 1

 Case 3:20-cv-00106-M Document 56 Filed 08/20/20

Page 2 of 7 PageID 1357

Schoolmaster, Dr. Rob Garnett, Dr. Darron Turner, Russell Mack Leigh Holland and Aaron
Chimbel for the discriminatory treatment they faced at TCU and during TCU sanctioned activities
because of their race and gender, including TCU and its agents’ deliberate indifference with which
they responded to Plaintiffs’ complaints and those of other African-American women. Plaintiffs
sued Defendants for violation of Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Title XI of the
Education Amendments of 1972; Section 504 of the rehabilitation Act of 1973; Title II of the
American with Disabilities Act; fraud; negligence; assault; and intentional infliction of emotional
distress in connection with the conduct of TCU and its agents. See [Dkt. No.44].
On January 15, 2020, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 1, filed her Original Complaint against TCU,
Dr. Diane Snow, Dr. Frederic W. Gooding Jr., Dr. Rob Garnett, Dr. Darron Turner, Russell Mack,
and Aaron Chimbel. See [Dkt. No. 1]. Needing time to “investigate” the claims, the Defendants
requested, and Plaintiffs agreed, to the extension of Defendants’ answer deadline. [Dkt. No. 6].
On March 23, 2020, nearly eleven weeks after Plaintiffs agreed to Defendants’ request for
additional time to answer, Defendants each moved this Court, in substantially similar motions, to
dismiss Jane Doe No.1’s claims under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). [Dkt. Nos. 8
through 15]. On April 23, 2020, without extension from the Court, Jane Doe No. 1 amended her
Complaint as a matter of right and added Plaintiffs Jane Does Nos. 2 and 3, and Defendants Dr.
Andrew Schoolmaster and Leigh Holland and removed Defendant Dr. Frederick W. Gooding, Jr.
[Dkt. No. 19]. Again, needing more time to “investigate” the claims, the Defendants requested,
and Plaintiffs agreed, to a second extension of Defendants’ answer deadline. [Dkt. No. 21].
On May 20, 2020, nearly five weeks after Plaintiffs agreed to Defendants’ request for
additional time to answer, Defendants again moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim under Federal Rule

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSED MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR JOINDER OF PARTIES

PAGE 2

 Case 3:20-cv-00106-M Document 56 Filed 08/20/20

Page 3 of 7 PageID 1358

of Civil Procedure 12(b), again filing substantially similar motions now pending before this Court.
[Dkt. Nos. 23 through 36]
On June 17, 2020, Plaintiffs’ filed their Opposed Motion for Leave to File Third Amended
Complaint, seeking to add the claims of Jane Does Nos. 4 and 5, and a Title VII claim on behalf
of Jane Doe No. 1. [Dkt. No. 40]. On June 26, 2020, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion in
part, allowing Plaintiffs to add a Title VII claim on behalf of Jane Doe No.1, but to “avoid
further delay in resolving Defendants’ pending Motions to Dismiss,” denied the joinder of
Jane Does Nos. 4 and 5. [Dkt. No. 43] (emphasis added). This Court, however, simultaneously
instructed that if “Plaintiffs wish to join [Jane Does Nos. 4 and 5] as parties to this case, they
may move separately for such relief.” Id. (emphasis added)
On July 12, 2020, this Court issued a Scheduling Order in this case. [Dkt No. 45]. Pursuant
to this Court’s Scheduling Order, the parties’ deadline to join parties is August 21, 2020. [Dkt.
No. 45 at ¶ 2]. On July 13, 2020, Plaintiffs’ filed their response to Defendants’ various motions
to dismiss. [Dkt. No. 46]. On July 27, 2020, Defendants’ replied to Plaintiffs’ response to
Defendants’ various 12(b) motions. [Dkt. Nos. 52 through 54]. Thus, the parties’ briefing relating
to Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss has concluded but this Court has not yet issued an
Order or otherwise ruled in connection with the same. Plaintiffs’ respect this Court’s guidance,
including its instruction that the parties refrain from filing further motions that may cause delay in
the resolution of Defendants’ pending Motions to Dismiss. Moreover, the Plaintiffs are mindful
that this Court has abated discovery in this case pending resolution of Defendants’ Motions to
Dismiss, and accordingly neither party has made its initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). Thus, Plaintiffs (and Defendants for that matter) have had neither the

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSED MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR JOINDER OF PARTIES

PAGE 3

 Case 3:20-cv-00106-M Document 56 Filed 08/20/20

Page 4 of 7 PageID 1359

benefit of discovery and disclosure, nor the guidance of this Court to properly join parties or claims
within the time provided by the Scheduling Order.
To that end, and in the interest of efficiency, Plaintiffs’ counsel conferred with Defendants’
counsel regarding extending the deadline for joinder until the Court resolved the pending motions.
Although Plaintiffs agreed to extended Defendants answer deadline multiple times, Defendants’
counsel informed Plaintiffs that they—under no circumstances—would agree to extend the
deadline for joinder set forth in the Scheduling Order. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this Opposed
Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Plaintiffs’ hereby respectfully request that this Court amend
the Scheduling Order in this case to extend the deadline for joinder of additional parties.
ARGUMENT
The Court can modify a Scheduling Order on a showing of good cause. FED. R. CIV. P.
16(b); S & W Enters v. South Trust Bank, 315 F. 3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003). The good cause
standard requires the “party seeking relief to show that the deadlines cannot reasonably be met
despite the diligence of the party needing the extension.” 6A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal
Practice and Procedure § 1522.1 (2d ed. 1990). Here, there is good cause to modify the current
Scheduling Order for several reasons, including because of the current abatement on discovery
and pending motions to dismiss for which this Court has instructed it seeks to address without any
delay caused by the potential joinder of additional parties. [Dkt. Nos. 39 and 43]. Moreover, the
on-going Covid-19 pandemic has presented numerous challenges in obtaining information,
generally, including information that would give rise to the need for additional parties in this case.
First, the need for more time under the Scheduling Order is explained by the abatement of discovery
in this case coupled with the Court’s directive that pending motions be resolved to avoid any

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSED MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR JOINDER OF PARTIES

PAGE 4

 Case 3:20-cv-00106-M Document 56 Filed 08/20/20

Page 5 of 7 PageID 1360

further delay of the same. [Dkt. No. 43]. Both the abatement of discovery in this case and the
Court’s June 26, 2020, directive are subject to the Court’s resolution of Defendants’ Motions to
Dismiss. [Dkt. Nos. 39 and 43]. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss have not been resolved by this
Court, thus neither Plaintiffs’ nor Defendants’ have had the benefit of the discovery and disclosures
or other guidance from this Court necessary to reasonably meet the August 21, 2020, deadline for
joinder because review and disclosure of the same may reasonably reveal the necessity of
additional parties to this lawsuit.
Second, without modifying the Scheduling Order Plaintiffs (and Defendants for that
matter) will be forced to file motions to join parties prior to reasonable discovery and disclosure
between the parties, and prior to the Court’s resolution of Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. The
result would be that potential parties to the lawsuit, who may only be revealed through discovery
and disclosure, including those subject to joinder under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 19 and
20, may not be properly or timely joined and the resulting judicial inefficiency of subsequent
motion practice to cure the same.
Third, Defendants will suffer no prejudice if the Scheduling Order is modified. Andretti v.
Borla Performance Indus., Inc., 426 F.3d 824, 830 (6th Cir. 2005). While Defendants’ will likely
argue that they will be prejudiced and burdened if the Scheduling Order is modified to extend the
time for joinder of parties, Defendants must acknowledge that neither party has had the benefit of
placing any information other than their allegations and challenges to the same before one another.
Moreover, Defendants’ cannot seriously claim that they are prejudiced or will otherwise be
burdened by an extension of the time for joinder of parties when they may still challenge Plaintiffs’
request for joinder if brought 45 days from now or after the Court’s resolution of their Motions to

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSED MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR JOINDER OF PARTIES

PAGE 5

 Case 3:20-cv-00106-M Document 56 Filed 08/20/20

Page 6 of 7 PageID 1361

Dismiss. Indeed, the requested extension is well before the close of discovery and almost a year
before trial. Moreover, the Defendants have previewed, in part, Plaintiffs’ request for joinder of
parties (without the benefit of discovery and disclosure and without resolution of the Rule 12
motions) as detailed by the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend [Dkt. No. 40]. Accordingly,
Defendants will not be prejudiced by the proposed modification of the Scheduling Order. Id.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs asks this Court to enter the proposed Modified
Scheduling Order.
Respectfully Submitted,
ANOZIE, LLP
/s/ Nnamdi M. Anozie
Nnamdi M. Anozie
State Bar No. 24087107
nma@anoziellp.com
6120 Swiss Avenue, #140383
T: (214) 606-3440
/s/ Keron A. Wright
Keron A. Wright
State Bar No. 24075311
Keron.wright@wrightlegalpllc.com
Wright Legal Services PLLC, Of
Counsel for Anozie, LLP
ATTORNEYS FOR JANE DOE
NO. 1, JANE DOE NO. 2 and
JANE DOE NO. 3

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSED MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR JOINDER OF PARTIES

PAGE 6

 Case 3:20-cv-00106-M Document 56 Filed 08/20/20

Page 7 of 7 PageID 1362

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that on August 20, 2020, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Nnamdi Anozie, conferred with
Defendants counsel, George Haratsis. Mr. Haratsis indicated that Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’
Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order to Extend Deadline for Joinder of Parties.
/s/ Nnamdi M. Anozie
Nnamdi M. Anozie
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served on counsel identified below in
accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the 20th day of August, 2020:
Via E-mail: gharatsis@mcdonaldlaw.com
Via E-mail:rdivin@mcdonaldlaw.com
Via E mail :jlittman@mcdonaldlaw.com
George C. Haratsis
Rory M. Divin
Jennifer N. Littman
McDonald Sanders,
A Professional Corporation
777 Main Street, Suite 2700
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Telephone: (817) 336-8651
Facsimile: (817) 334-0271

/s/ Nnamdi M. Anozie
Nnamdi M. Anozie

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSED MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR JOINDER OF PARTIES

PAGE 7