Tuesday, November 4, 2025
Page 3
Ninth Circuit Partially Revives Sex-Abuse Cases Against Ex-Coach of U.S. Snowboard Team
Opinion Says Assertions That Plaintiffs Were ‘Groomed’ in CA Were Enough for Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Parties on Harassment Claims Even if Alleged Assaults Occurred Elsewhere
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday partially revived two lawsuits filed against the founding head coach of the U.S. Ski & Snowboard Team, among others, relating to claims that the defendants covered up multiple incidents of sexual abuse, finding that the trial judge improperly dismissed the actions, with prejudice, based on a lack of jurisdiction because the alleged assaultive conduct occurred out of state.
Saying that the plaintiffs’ allegations that the coach “groomed them” during training camps and other events held in California were sufficiently related to some of the claims in the operative pleadings—including sexual harassment, negligence, negligent supervision, and intentional infliction of emotional distress—the court said the trial judge erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over the entire matter based on the purported assaults occurring elsewhere.
In a memorandum opinion, signed by Circuit Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw and Lucy H. Koh, as well as Senior Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by designation, the court declared:
“We AFFIRM the district court’s determination that it could not exercise general jurisdiction over Appellees. We REVERSE its determination that it lacked specific jurisdiction over certain of Appellants’ tort claims. We REMAND for the district court to consider whether it may exercise pendent personal jurisdiction over the remaining claims.”
Two Complaints Filed
Four women asserted claims against former head coach Peter Foley, an Oregon resident, the U.S. Ski & Snowboard Team (“USSS”), based out of Utah, and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (“USOPC”), a Colorado entity, in two separate complaints filed in February 2023.
In her operative pleading, former team employee Lindsey Nikola accused Foley of coercing her into a nude photograph session and sexually assaulting her during a race in Colorado.
Former team members Rosey Fletcher, Erin O’Malley, and Callan Chythlook-Sifsof also filed suit against Foley, asserting in their operative complaint that Foley “exploited his position of authority” to sexually assault Fletcher and O’Malley and to encourage Chythlook-Sifsof to attend a party in Switzerland, when she was 16 years old, where she “was given significant quantities of alcohol” before she was raped by another coach.
In the complaints, each of which was filed by attorneys with the Los Angeles offices of Bois Schiller Flexner LLP, the plaintiffs assert claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), based on allegations that USSS and USOPC conspired with Foley to conceal patterns of abuse, as well as state law causes of action for sexually battery, assault, and harassment, among others.
Of the four plaintiffs, only O’Malley is a California resident.
Motions to Dismiss
In June of last year, District Court Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett of the Central District of California granted motions to dismiss the two complaints, with prejudice, noting that the plaintiffs had each made “two attempts to amend, yet ha[d] failed to address…deficiencies.”
She rejected what she described as a “novel theory” that the “nature of the harm caused by sexual assault is such that specific jurisdiction lies wherever” a plaintiff was in the same location with her alleged abuser. Garnett remarked in both orders:
“[A]lthough [it is alleged that] Foley intentionally travelled to California for recruiting and training, and that USSS and USOPC supported various Team activities in California, this conduct is too attenuated from the activity that caused Plaintiff’s alleged injuries to give rise to specific personal jurisdiction.”
The Ninth Circuit consolidated the ensuing appeals.
Wardlaw, Koh, and Gilman agreed with Garnett that the defendants’ connection with California was too attenuated for the court to exercise general jurisdiction over them but said that specific personal jurisdiction may be appropriate if they “purposefully directed” activities to, or “availed” themselves of the privilege of conducting business in, the state and the claims arose out of those actions.
Specific Jurisdiction
Applying those principles, they opined:
“The district court erred, however, in concluding that it lacked specific jurisdiction over several of Appellants’ tort claims—namely, their claims for sexual harassment, negligence, negligent supervision and retention, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotion distress. The court found that Appellants failed to allege California-based conduct by Appellees that gave rise to their injuries. We disagree.”
The judges continued:
“Appellants allege that Foley groomed them during training camps, events, and competitions held in California and that USSS and USOPC, despite having knowledge of Foley’s predatory behavior, organized and facilitated those events. Appellants contend that Foley’s access to athletes was made possible through those California-based team activities and that at least one assault occurred immediately following a California training camp. Accepting those allegations as true,…‘but for’ the trainings, competitions, and related events hosted in California, Appellants would not have suffered the alleged harms in that forum state….These facts are sufficient to establish a causal nexus.”
Fair Play
Addressing whether concerns of fair play and substantial justice weighed against the exercise of jurisdiction, they commented:
“Appellees have ‘not shown that litigation in California has been or would be so gravely difficult and inconvenient as to render the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction unreasonable.’…Appellees have frequently traveled to California for official events, and much of that travel is directly related to the events giving rise to this suit….Additionally, if California were not a proper forum, Appellants would likely be forced to pursue separate suits in multiple jurisdictions, as no single forum appears able to exercise jurisdiction over all defendants.”
They added:
“[B]ecause we conclude that the district court has specific jurisdiction over some of Appellants’ claims, on remand the district court should consider exercising jurisdiction over Appellants’ sexual assault, battery, and remaining claims to the extent that the claims arise out of a ‘common nucleus of operative fact.’ ”
The case is Nikola v. Foley.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company