Rosenwasser v. Fordham Univ., 772 F. App’x 1

In May 2010 Fordham University banned Matthew Rosenwasser from campus after a security guard complained he harassed her.
Rosenwasser sued in New York state court on June 11, 2011; the state court dismissed most claims on motion and granted summary judgment for Fordham on the remaining claim on May 12, 2017.
Rosenwasser filed a federal complaint July 10, 2017 asserting Title IX and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims based on the same events.
Fordham moved to dismiss in federal court on statute-of-limitations grounds; the district court dismissed the federal claims as untimely on March 14, 2018.
On appeal, Rosenwasser abandoned his primary tolling argument (that the state-court litigation tolled the federal limitations period) by not pressing it.
The Second Circuit affirmed, holding Rosenwasser waived other equitable-tolling theories not raised below and that his asserted reasons did not meet the rare-and-exceptional standard for equitable tolling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal Title IX and § 1983 claims are timely	Rosenwasser argued equitable tolling applied (various bases) to save his otherwise time-barred federal claims	Fordham argued claims were barred by New York's three-year limitations period and no tolling applied	Claims untimely; district court judgment affirmed
Whether state-court litigation tolled the federal statute of limitations	Rosenwasser asserted tolling while state suit was pending (below)	Fordham argued no tolling; federal claims must meet limitations period	Rosenwasser abandoned this argument on appeal; not addressed on merits
Whether new equitable-tolling grounds raised on appeal can be considered	Rosenwasser raised three new equitable-tolling theories on appeal	Fordham argued those theories were waived because not raised below	Court held new theories waived and not considered
Whether Rosenwasser’s asserted reasons (mislabeling, failure to investigate Title IX, filing in wrong forum) justify equitable tolling	Rosenwasser claimed Fordham misled him by labeling complaint as "harassment," refused a Title IX investigation, and that he filed in wrong forum	Fordham argued these reasons do not constitute extraordinary circumstances and ignorance of law is not tolling basis	Court held none amount to "rare and exceptional" circumstances; equitable tolling denied

Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002) (standards for pleadings and incorporation by reference)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must permit reasonable inference of liability)
Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (liberal construction of pro se complaints limited by what submissions suggest)
Walker v. Jastremski, 430 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 2005) (equitable tolling requires rare and exceptional circumstances and diligence)
Curto v. Edmundson, 392 F.3d 502 (2d Cir. 2004) (Title IX claims are governed by state personal-injury limitations period)
Shomo v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2009) (§ 1983 claims governed by state law limitations)
LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1995) (issues not presented on appeal are deemed abandoned)
Morse v. Univ. of Vt., 973 F.2d 122 (2d Cir. 1992) (appellate courts generally decline to consider equitable-tolling arguments not raised below)
Ormiston v. Nelson, 117 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 1997) (ignorance of the law does not justify equitable tolling)