Doe v. New York University, 537 F.Supp.3d 483

Background

Plaintiff Jane Doe, a first-year NYU student, was suspended for the spring 2021 semester after an OSC investigation concluded she attended an indoor off‑campus dinner where students were unmasked and not socially distanced; suspension followed photo evidence and prior disciplinary contacts.
NYU's disciplinary rules include a broad Student Conduct Policy (Policy Bl) and Policy E3 which incorporates a campus COVID‑19 Access Policy and governmental public‑health orders; NYU repeatedly notified students that policies apply off campus and that violation could result in suspension.
Doe had two prior anonymous reports earlier in the year (one resulted in charges later dismissed; the other did not proceed), viewed NYU COVID videos, and signed acknowledgements acknowledging the rules.
Doe sued in federal court under diversity jurisdiction alleging breach of an implied contract and sought a TRO and preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of her suspension; the Court initially granted a TRO.
The district court held it has diversity jurisdiction over Article 78–type challenges but must apply New York law, converted Doe's contract claim into Article 78 review, and denied the preliminary injunction for lack of likelihood of success on the merits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Federal subject‑matter jurisdiction over a state Article 78‑type challenge	Doe invoked diversity jurisdiction to bring a breach‑of‑contract claim in federal court	NYU argued Article 78's exclusive state‑court procedure bars federal review and/or counsels abstention	Court held diversity jurisdiction exists; federal courts may hear Article 78 claims but may abstain in extraordinary cases (no abstention here)
Applicable substantive standard (Article 78 deferential review v. ordinary contract law)	Doe argued she chose a contract claim and thus federal substantive standards apply	NYU argued New York law controls in diversity and challenges to discipline are governed by Article 78's deferential standard	Court held New York law governs; Article 78 standard applies and converts the claim to that form
Merits: whether NYU breached its policies by sanctioning off‑campus conduct and whether suspension was unsupported/arbitrary	Doe contended NYU’s COVID Access Policy applied only on campus, so NYU lacked authority to punish private off‑campus gatherings; also argued insufficiency of evidence	NYU contended its Student Conduct Policy and repeated notices clearly applied off campus and incorporated public‑health rules; photo evidence and prior contacts supported OSC credibility findings	Court held Doe failed to show likelihood of success; NYU reasonably applied its policies and suspension was not arbitrary or unsupported
Anonymity (motion to proceed under a pseudonym)	Doe sought to proceed anonymously to avoid harassment and professional harm	NYU opposed public identification	Court granted pseudonymity, finding Doe would face real risk of reputational/retaliatory harm and balancing factors favored anonymity

Key Cases Cited

Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (articulates preliminary‑injunction standard requiring likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
Agudath Israel of Am. v. Cuomo, 979 F.3d 177 (2d Cir. 2020) (discusses extraordinary nature of injunctive relief and Winter standard)
Otoe‑Missouria Tribe of Indians v. New York State Dep’t of Fin. Servs., 769 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2014) (cited for likelihood‑of‑success inquiry)
Lynch v. City of New York, 589 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2009) (preliminary‑injunction standard authority)
Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) (federal courts sitting in diversity must apply state substantive law)
Maas v. Cornell Univ., 94 N.Y.2d 87 (1999) (Article 78 is appropriate vehicle for review of educational institutions’ disciplinary decisions)
Kickertz v. New York Univ., 25 N.Y.3d 942 (2015) (private university discipline upheld where institution substantially complied with procedures)
Matter of Pell v. Bd. of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222 (1974) (disciplinary penalties overturned only if shock the conscience)
Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943) (abstention doctrine where federal adjudication would disrupt state efforts)
New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350 (1989) (abstention where federal adjudication would interfere with state policy)
Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996) (limits on dismissal under Burford and related abstention principles)
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819) (Supremacy Clause principles regarding federal jurisdiction)