In Doe v. Zeinalpoor-Movahed, decided May 7, 2024 by Judge John Tharp (N.D. Ill.) but just posted on Westlaw, plaintiff alleged that defendant sexually assaulted her:
At the time, the parties had been dating for several months. Both resided in Seattle, Washington, but had family in Chicago. They traveled to Chicago together, but spent some time separately visiting their families. They met up on December 28 at the home of Doe’s parents, where they stayed the night, and on the 29th, they checked into a suite in an upscale Chicago hotel, which Doe’s parents had paid for as a present to the couple. The following narrative of what ensued summarizes information submitted by the parties in support of their claims, with the principal disputes identified. {This case was originally filed in state court, and the state court permitted Doe to proceed anonymously. A motion to require Doe to proceed under her real name was pending when Doe’s case was dismissed with prejudice.}
The record reflects that the Doe and Movahed were getting on well when they checked into the hotel; there is no evidence of any antecedent arguments or discord. After checking into the hotel, the parties shared a bottle of wine and had “consensual intercourse with enthusiastic and ongoing consent.” (Doe’s words.) Later, they walked to a nearby restaurant and met up with three friends of Movahed. Doe claims to have consumed three, or possibly four, beers, an Old Fashioned, and a shot of whiskey, and to have eaten a bowl of chili, while at the restaurant. Upon leaving the restaurant, Movahed invited his friends back to the hotel suite.
…
Doe next recalls being awakened later that night by Movahed. Both were in bed naked and Movahed, who had an erection, was pressed against Doe, asking her to have sex. Doe maintains that she was still intoxicated and confused about what had happened, did not know how she had ended up naked in the bed, and repeatedly told Movahed “no” in response to his entreaties, but “[e]ventually … said ‘fine’ [because] I was worried he would get upset or keep coercing me or get mad. I wanted it to be over.” Doe maintains that she was frozen and numb when Movahed entered her and that she did not participate or encourage Movahed in any way. For his part, Movahed maintains that he and Doe had a coherent conversation of approximately fifteen minutes immediately before engaging in consensual sex. Movahed states that when he proposed sex, Doe said her stomach was bothering her but said “OK” to his request and fully participated in the ensuing sexual intercourse.
Both parties also point to subsequent events to corroborate their respective accounts. Doe notes that she told friends about the incident and broke things off with Movahed by January 1, subsequently obtaining a series of domestic violence restraining orders against him—conduct that is consistent with her stated belief that she did not consent. Movahed notes (and Doe acknowledges) that she initiated sex with Movahed the next morning—consistent with his contention that Doe had relented to his request the night before (Doe maintains that she did so only to appease Movahed, who had become angry when she tried to address the issue of his conduct the night before.)
Doe filed this lawsuit … on December 29, 2022, two years after the incident…. Less than four months later, Doe moved to dismiss the suit with prejudice and the Court granted that motion.
The court concluded that defendant was entitled to court costs ($1457), which prevailing prevailing may presumptively recover:
“[A] voluntary dismissal with prejudice renders the opposing party a ‘prevailing party’ within the meaning of Rule 54.” “Rule 54(d) generally creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party.” There are two recognized exceptions to this rule—litigation misconduct by the party seeking costs and indigency of the party against whom they are sought—but neither applies here…. Doe complains only that Movahed issued subpoenas to friends and colleagues, causing her stress, but there is no suggestion or basis to conclude that the subpoenas were issued for that purpose rather than to obtain relevant evidence….
But the court concluded that defendant wasn’t entitled to recover his attorney fees as a sanction for what he claims is an allegedly frivolous lawsuit (the presumption is against such awards, and the bar for showing frivolousness that justifies such sanctions is high). Here’s a good summary of the opinion from the conclusion:
Movahed’s ire is understandable. With the dismissal of Doe’s case with prejudice, he has been legally vindicated, but at substantial cost to his reputation and bank account. His able counsel has …