S.W. v. Pressley Ridge
5:25-cv-00054
| N.D.W. Va. | Jun 13, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, identified as S.W., alleged repeated sexual abuse in 2004/2005 by an employee ("Chief George") while a minor at Pressley Ridge's West Virginia facility.
- Plaintiff filed the complaint in March 2025, asserting four causes of action: negligence, negligent supervision, negligent hiring/training/retention, and breach of fiduciary duty.
- The plaintiff's allegations described ongoing sexual abuse, threats, and coercion by the employee during his nine-month stay as a minor at the facility.
- Pressley Ridge (defendant) is alleged to have employed the abuser but is not alleged to have aided, abetted, or concealed the abuse.
- Pressley Ridge moved to dismiss, citing the statute of limitations; briefing was completed and the matter was before Judge Bailey for decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statute of limitations is tolled | Claims are timely under the minor sexual abuse tolling statute; should not be limited by strict text | Tolling requires a showing that defendant aided, abetted, or concealed abuse; not alleged by plaintiff | Statute is not tolled; no allegation of aiding/abetting |
| Statutory construction of tolling provision | Legislative intent was broader than the strict text; non-compliance should not bar the claim | Statute's plain language governs; only specified conduct tolls the statute | Plain statutory text must be applied |
| Relationship between 55-2-15(a) & 55-2-15(c) | Section 55-2-15(c) nullifies the strict limitation in (a) | Section (c) is retroactive application, not nullifying (a) | (c) does not override (a); (a) prevails as written |
| Sufficiency of complaint's allegations | Negligent conduct by defendant meets aiding/abetting/concealment standard | Complaint lacks any factual allegation of aiding/abetting/concealment | No sufficient allegation; claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaints must state plausible claims, not just legal conclusions)
- Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298 (4th Cir. 2008) (reaffirming Twombly's plausibility standard in 12(b)(6) motions)
- Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231 (4th Cir. 1999) (standard for review of motion to dismiss is to assume the complaint's facts are true)
- Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Schmoke, 63 F.3d 1305 (4th Cir. 1995) (courts may only consider complaint and judicially noticeable materials at 12(b)(6) stage)
- Hillman v. IRS, 263 F.3d 338 (4th Cir. 2001) (statutory construction requires applying the clear language of the statute)
- United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057 (4th Cir. 1988) (plain meaning of statutory language is conclusive)