Le v. New England Swimming et al

Amanda Le,
United States 	District Court
District of Massachusetts
Plaintiff,
V. 	Civil Action No.
24-11559-NMG
New England 	Swimming, 	et 	al.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM 	& ORDER
GORTON, 	J.
Defendants 	Alvaro 	Sanchez , 	Anne 	Fr azier , 	Joseph 	Fraz i e r 	and
Alex 	Cronin 	(collective l y 	" the 	remaining 	defendants " ) , 	USA
Swimming , 	Inc . 	( " USA 	Swimming " ) , 	New 	England 	Swimming , 	Inc .
(" New 	England 	Swimming " ) 	and 	Michelle 	Sweeney 	(" Sweeney " ) , 	have
been 	sued 	for 	alleged 	violation 	of 	the 	Victims 	of 	Trafficking
and 	Violence 	Protection 	Act 	in 	Count 	I 	of 	plaintiff ' s 	First
Amended 	Complaint 	and 	for 	Negligent 	Co n d u ct 	Co n tr i b u ting 	to 	the
Sexual 	Abuse 	of 	a 	Minor 	By 	Another 	Person 	under 	Co u n t 	I I I . 1
Sweeney , 	USA 	Swimming 	and 	New 	Eng l and 	Swimming moved 	to
dismiss 	both 	counts 	against 	them 	as 	barred 	by 	the 	applicable
statute 	of 	limitations . 	This 	Court 	granted 	that 	mo t ion 	as 	to
Count 	I 	but 	denied 	it 	as 	to 	Count 	III . 	The 	remaining 	defendants
timely 	filed 	answers 	to 	the 	complaint 	but 	did 	not 	assert 	any
1 Co un t 	II , 	alleging sexua l 	abuse , 	was only brought against the Estate of Joe
Be r n a l .
- 	1 	-
Case 1:24-cv-11559-NMG Document 61 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 6

affirmative 	defenses 	or 	file 	motions 	to 	dismiss 	either 	count
against 	them.
Sweeney 	now 	contends 	that 	the 	Court 	does 	not 	have
jurisdiction 	to 	hear 	the 	case 	because 	it 	dismissed 	the 	federal
claim 	against 	her 	and 	against 	USA 	Swimming 	and 	New 	England
Swimming , 	both 	of 	which 	concede 	that 	venue 	is 	properly 	located
in 	this 	Court .
II. 	Legal 	Standard
A. Statute 	of 	Limitations 	Defense
The 	statute 	of 	limitations 	must 	be 	raised 	as 	an 	affirmative
defense 	in 	a 	party ' s 	answer 	or 	by 	an 	appropriate 	motion . 	Fed . 	R .
Civ . 	P. 	8(c) (1) ; 	Jakobsen 	v. 	Mass . 	Port 	Auth ., 	520 	F . 2d 	810 , 	813
(1st 	Cir . 	19 7 5 ) 	(allowing 	affirmative 	defenses 	to 	be 	raised 	in
amended 	answer 	when 	" there 	is 	no 	prejudice 	and 	when 	fairness
dictates " ) ; 	Knapp 	Shoes , 	Inc . 	v . 	Sylvania 	Shoe 	Mfg . 	Corp ., 	15
F . 3d 	1222 , 	1226 	(1st 	Cir . 	1994) . 	Failure 	to 	raise 	an
affirmative 	defense 	in 	a 	timely 	fashion 	constitutes 	a 	waiver 	of
that 	defense , 	and 	courts 	may 	not 	sua 	sponte 	rule 	on 	an
affirmative 	defense 	that 	a 	party 	has 	failed 	to 	assert 	itself .
Jakobsen , 	520 	F . 2d 	at 	813 ; 	Nunez - Perez 	v. 	Escobar - Pabon , 	133
F . 4th 	33 , 	42 	(1st 	Cir . 	2025) .
For 	a 	claim 	to 	be 	precluded 	under 	res 	judicata , 	three
elements 	must 	be 	satisfied : 	" (1) 	the 	identity 	or 	privity 	of 	the
parties 	to 	the 	present 	and 	prior 	actions ; 	(2) 	identity 	of 	the
- 	2 	-
Case 1:24-cv-11559-NMG Document 61 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 6

cause 	of 	action ; 	and 	(3) 	prior 	final 	judgment 	on 	the 	merits ."
RFF 	Fam . 	P' ship , 	LP 	v . 	Ross , 	814 	F . 3d 	520 , 	532 	(1st 	Cir . 	2016)
(c i ta tions 	o mitted) . 	Dismissal 	of 	a 	c laim 	bas e d 	on 	the 	statut e
o f 	limitation 	is 	a 	final 	j udgment 	on 	the 	merits 	of 	the 	claim .
Ro s e 	v . 	Harw i ch , 	778 	F . 2d 	77 , 	80 	(1st 	Cir . 	1985).
B. Supplemental 	Jurisdiction
When 	a 	federal 	district 	court 	has 	original 	jurisdiction
over 	a 	civil 	action , 	it 	may 	assert 	supplemental 	jurisdiction
over 	all 	other 	claims 	or 	parties 	that 	form 	the 	same 	case 	or
c o ntroversy . 2 	28 	U. S . C . 	§1367(a) ; 	Roche 	v . 	John 	Hancock 	Mut . 	Life
Ins . 	Co ., 	81 	F . 3d 	249 , 	256 	(1st 	Cir . 	1996) 	The 	exercise 	of
supplemental 	jurisdiction 	is 	a 	matter 	of 	discretion 	in 	which 	the
c o urt 	must 	cons i d e r 	wheth e r 	the 	federal 	and 	state 	claims 	" derive
f ro m a 	common 	nucleus 	o f 	operative 	fac t ," 	among 	other
c on siderations . 	2 8 	U. S . C . 	§1367(a) - (c) ; 	United 	Mine 	Workers 	v .
Gibbs , 	383 	U. S . 	715 , 	725 	(1966) ; 	Roche , 	81 	F . 3d 	at 	256 .
If 	the 	foundational 	federal 	claim 	is 	dismissed , 	the 	court
may 	still 	exercise 	supplemental 	jurisdiction 	over 	related 	claims
aris i ng 	out 	o f 	state 	law 	if 	doing 	so 	would 	serve 	the 	interests
o f 	" co mity , 	judicial 	economy , 	convenience , 	fairness , 	and 	the
2 Supplemental 	juri s diction c o difie s 	t h e d octri n es on c e 	refe rr e d to as p ende n t
jurisdict i on , 	wh i c h i s 	e x e rcis ed ove r 	all 	cla ims r el a te d t o a 	federa l
question , 	a n d pen d e n t 	party j u ri sd i c t ion , 	wh i ch is ex e rc i s e d o ve r 	other
part i es i n volved i n the same c ase o r 	co n t r ove rsy . 	28 U. S . C . 	§1 3 67 ; 	God in v .
S chencks , 	629 F . 3d 79 , 	83 n . 4(lst Cir . 	2 01 0) 	(discussing h is to r y of
s upplemental 	juris d iction) .
- 	3 	-
Case 1:24-cv-11559-NMG Document 61 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 6

like ." 	Senra 	v . 	Town 	of 	Smithfield , 	715 	F . 3d 	34 , 	41 	(1st 	Cir .
2013) ; 	O' Connor 	v . 	Commonwealth 	Gas 	Co ., 	251 	F . 3d 	262 , 	272 - 73
(1st 	Cir . 	2001) 	(considering 	the 	stage 	of 	the 	case 	at 	the 	time
the 	federal 	claim was 	terminated) .
III. 	Analysis
Altho ugh 	the 	remaining 	defendants 	failed 	to 	raise 	the
statute 	of 	limitations 	as 	an 	affirmative 	defense 	to 	Count 	I 	in
their 	answer 	to 	plaintiff ' s 	amended 	complaint , 	Sweeney 	contends
that , 	because 	she 	raised 	the 	defense 	and 	Count 	I 	against 	her 	was
dismissed , 	that 	count 	must 	also 	be 	dismissed 	against 	the
remaining 	defendants 	based 	on 	res 	judicata . 	Sweeney 	is ,
however , 	mistaken . 	Res 	judicata 	does 	not 	apply 	to 	the 	remaining
defendants 	because 	no 	facts 	or 	arguments 	have 	been 	proffered 	to
show 	that 	the 	remaining 	defendants 	are 	in 	privity 	with 	Sweeney .
Ross , 	814 	F . 3d 	at 	532. 	Further , 	an 	affirmative 	defense 	is
personal 	to 	the 	party 	that 	asserts 	it 	and 	the 	Court 	will 	not
acknowledge 	it 	on 	behalf 	of 	another 	party . 	Nunez - Perez , 	133
F . 4th 	at 	42 . 	As 	such , 	Count 	I 	survives 	with 	respect 	to 	the
remaining 	defendants .
Because 	the 	Court 	has 	original 	jurisdiction 	over 	the
federal 	claim 	in 	Count 	I 	with 	respect 	to 	the 	remaining
defendants , 	it 	may 	exercise 	supplemental 	jurisdiction 	over 	the
related 	claim 	arising 	out 	of 	state 	law 	in 	Count 	III . 	28 	U. S . C .
§1367(a) ; 	Roche , 	81 	F . 3d 	at 	256 . 	The 	federal 	and 	state 	claims
- 	4 	-
Case 1:24-cv-11559-NMG Document 61 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 6

are 	based 	on 	a 	common 	nucleus 	of 	operative 	fact , 	i . e ., 	both
arose 	from 	the 	purported 	sexual 	harassment 	of 	the 	plaintiff 	by
Joseph 	Bernal 	and 	are 	based 	on 	defendants' 	alleged
contemporaneous 	knowledge 	and 	conduct 	which 	will 	require
analysis 	of 	the 	same 	evidence . 	Gibbs , 	383 	U. S . 	at 	725 .
Furthermore , 	judicial 	economy 	and 	convenience 	favor
adjudicating 	these 	claims 	and 	defendants 	together . 	O' Connor , 	251
F . 3d 	at 	272 - 73 . 	It 	is 	unnecessary 	to 	conduct 	identical
proceedings 	in 	state 	and 	federal 	court , 	i nvolving 	t h e 	same
witnesses 	and 	evidence , 	when 	both 	forums 	are 	equally 	capable 	of
hearing 	the 	case 	and 	its 	refiling 	in 	state 	court 	risks 	a 	finding
of 	expiration 	of 	the 	statute 	of 	limitations . 	Id . 	In 	sum ,
notwithstanding 	the 	dismissal 	of 	Count 	I 	against 	defendant
Sweeney , 	this 	Court 	retains 	supplemental 	jurisdiction 	over 	all
defendants 	with 	respect 	to 	Count 	III . 	Senra , 	715 	F . 3d 	at 	41 .
- 	5 	-
Case 1:24-cv-11559-NMG Document 61 Filed 02/11/26 Page 5 of 6

ORDER
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons , 	Sweeney ' s 	motion 	to 	dismiss
(Docket 	No . 	54) 	is 	DENIED.
So 	ordered.
Nathaniel 	M. 	Gor"tbn
Senior 	United 	States 	District 	Judge
Dated : 	February /{ , 	2026
- 	6 	-
Case 1:24-cv-11559-NMG Document 61 Filed 02/11/26 Page 6 of 6