U.S. District Court

Where a plaintiff alleging that her former swim coach sexually abused her between 2008 and 2015 has asserted claims against other defendants, the plaintiff’s Trafficking Victims Protection Act count must be dismissed as time-barred but the defendants’ motion to dismiss should be denied as to a claim for negligent supervision or conduct contributing to the sexual abuse of a minor.
“Plaintiff, Amanda Le (‘plaintiff’ or ‘Le’), alleges that her former swim coach, Joseph Bernal (‘Bernal’), sexually abused her between 2008 and 2015. She further asserts that multiple defendants financially benefitted from, and helped conceal, that abuse. Three of those defendants, New England Swimming, Inc., (‘New England Swimming’), USA Swimming, Inc. (‘USA Swimming’) and Michelle Sweeney (‘Sweeney’) (collectively, ‘defendants’), now move to dismiss. For the reasons that follow, both motions to dismiss will be allowed, in part, and denied, in part. …
“Defendants first argue that plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief because her TVPA claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. §1595(c). Section 1595(c) provides that a TVPA claim is not actionable unless it was filed within ‘10 years after the cause of action arose’ or, if the victim was a minor at the time of the offense, ‘10 years after the victim reaches 18 years of age,’ whichever is later. According to defendants, plaintiff’s TVPA claim is time-barred because she did not file her complaint until three years after she had reached the age of 28. …
“In this case, Le failed to address when her claim ‘arose’ under §1595(c) in opposition to the motion of USA Swimming and New England Swimming and, in opposition to the motion of defendant Sweeney, she only tacitly suggests that her cause of action did not arise until she learned of Sweeney’s involvement in 2014. More is needed to demonstrate that her claim was timely filed at this stage. As the First Circuit has recognized, district courts are under no obligation to ‘comb’ through a complaint to find plausible facts in support of an argument plaintiff should have, but failed, to raise. … The same is true in this case. Le neglects to articulate how her claim was timely filed under the applicable statute of limitations. Accordingly, she has failed to present her TVPA claim within the required period and it will therefore be dismissed. …
“Defendants USA Swimming and New England Swimming further contend that Le’s claim for negligent supervision or conduct contributing to the sexual abuse of a minor is barred by the statute of limitations set forth in M.G.L.c. 260 §4C 1/2. That statute provides that any claim for negligent supervision contributing to the abuse of a minor is barred if it is not brought within ‘7 years’ after the plaintiff discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, that an ‘emotional or psychological injury or condition was caused by such act.’ …
“In this case, plaintiff alleges that defendants concealed the extent of Bernal’s acts and that they did so to protect the prestige and income generated by Bernal as a swimming coach. Based upon his reputation as a coach, plaintiff has plausibly alleged that defendants had good reason to avoid disclosing or sanctioning Bernal’s behavior and that such concealment deprived her of the knowledge that she had a claim against defendants as well. At the pleading stage, at least, nothing more is required.
“Because the timing of the discovery of an injury is generally a question of fact, as defendants concede, Le has sufficiently alleged a claim for negligence, notwithstanding defendants’ assertion that it is time-barred. …
“For the foregoing reasons, the motions to dismiss of defendant, Michelle Sweeney, and defendants, New England Swimming, Inc. and USA Swimming, Inc., (Docket Nos. 37 and 44) are, with respect to Count I of plaintiff’s complaint, allowed, but, with respect to Count III, denied.”
Le v. New England Swimming, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-440-25) (14 pages) (Gorton, J.) (Civil Action No. 24-11559-NMG) (Aug. 12, 2025).