Doe ex rel. Doe's Mother v. Sinrod
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8744
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Doe filed a complaint on September 13, 2010 against the School Board and Sinrod; an amended complaint followed on October 25, 2010 alleging Sinrod sexually assaulted a student in May 2003.
- Doe claimed the school administrator failed to investigate the complaint, causing emotional injury after her family relocated.
- Doe asserted she complied with 768.28(6)(a) pre-suit notice by notifying the School Board and the Florida Department of Financial Services on January 29, 2010.
- The School Board and Sinrod moved to dismiss; the School Board argued four-year limitations and failure to provide timely notice under 768.28(6)(a).
- The trial court dismissed Doe’s amended complaint with prejudice; on appeal, the court reviewed de novo the dismissal order.
- The court held that the School Board’s negligence claims were time-barred under 768.28 and not tolled by §95.11(7); Title IX claims were also time-barred and properly dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute of limitations governs the School Board negligence claims? | Doe argues §95.11(7) tolls for abuse against minors. | School Board argues §768.28 governs against governmental entities. | §768.28 governs; §95.11(7) tolling not applicable. |
| Is tolling under §95.11(7) applicable to §768.28(6)(a) pre-suit notice? | Tolling applies to notice requirements for abuse. | §95.11(7) does not apply to negligent claims against a state agency. | Tolling not applicable; notice must be within §768.28(6)(a) period. |
| Were the School Board negligence claims time-barred by §768.28(6)(a) notice requirements? | Claims filed within a broader timeline due to abuse context. | Notice was not provided within three years of accrual. | Yes, not timely; barred. |
| Are the Title IX claims time-barred or viable after §768.28 applies? | Title IX claim should avoid limitations by tolling. | Title IX damages action is governed by personal-injury-like limitations; later dismissal appropriate. | Title IX claim dismissed as time-barred under applicable statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. Favalora, 11 So.3d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (protects abuse victims from premature dismissal against state entities)
- Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Menendez, 584 So.2d 567 (Fla. 1991) (government entity waiver of immunity governs statutes used)
- Board of Public Instruction of Broward County v. State ex rel. Allen, 219 So.2d 430 (Fla. 1969) (county school boards are state agencies for immunity purposes)
- Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1989) (general or residual statute as default for multiple personal-injury limits)
- M.H.D. v. Westminster Schools, 172 F.3d 797 (11th Cir. 1999) (title IX damages borrow state tort limitations framework)
- Hearndon v. Graham, 767 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 2000) (child abuse claims may be excused from immediate limitations due to emotional impact)
- Garnac Grain Co. v. Mejia, 962 So.2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (de novo review standard for dismissal with prejudice)