Diego Sarabia Seeks Dismissal in Cornell Lawsuit

Diego Sarabia, a defendant in a civil lawsuit filed by a former Cornell University undergraduate identified as Jane Doe, has asked a New York state court to dismiss the claims against him. His motion challenges the legal sufficiency and timing of the allegations, which stem from an incident of alleged sexual assault at a fraternity house in 2024.

The lawsuit accuses multiple individuals of misconduct during an intoxicated gathering. Sarabia disputes the claims against him, and his lawyer argues that his alleged conduct should be considered separately from the broader accusations in the complaint.

The dismissal request was filed on Friday, according to the supplied report, after the lawsuit was initiated on September 16. Doe’s legal team had not filed a response to Sarabia’s motion at the time of the report. The court has not been reported to have ruled on the dismissal request.

What Does the Cornell Lawsuit Allege?

The civil complaint concerns an alleged incident in 2024 involving a former Cornell undergraduate and several individuals at a fraternity house. The plaintiff, referred to as Jane Doe, alleges that she was subjected to sexual misconduct during an intoxicated gathering in a room described in the complaint as the “alumni room.”

According to the lawsuit, Sarabia allegedly grabbed Doe’s face and kissed her without her consent. The complaint also identifies him among seven individuals accused of allegedly snorting ketamine off her body during the gathering.

These statements are allegations contained in a civil complaint, not established findings of fact. Sarabia is contesting the claims directed at him, and his motion asks the court to dismiss them on legal grounds.

The distinction between allegations against individual defendants and the wider claims in a lawsuit is central to Sarabia’s argument. His lawyer contends that the complaint does not adequately connect his client to much of the conduct described elsewhere in the case.

Why Diego Sarabia Wants the Claims Dismissed

In his motion, Sarabia asks the court to dismiss all claims brought against him. His legal team argues that the claims are either barred by the applicable statute of limitations, legally insufficient, or both.

A statute of limitations establishes the period within which a legal claim generally must be filed. Whether a particular deadline applies depends on the nature of the claim, the relevant law and any applicable exceptions or extensions.

Sarabia’s attorney argues that the assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against his client are subject to a one-year limitations period. The filing also disputes whether the extensions referenced in the complaint apply to the allegations directed at Sarabia.

The court will need to assess the applicable legal rules and the arguments presented before deciding whether any claims should be dismissed. Filing a motion does not itself establish that a claim is time-barred or legally deficient.

Lawyer Describes the Case as a Dispute Over an Alleged Forced Kiss

James C. Knox, who represents Sarabia, characterised the claims against his client as narrower than the allegations involving other defendants.

In the filing, Knox wrote that “this is essentially a lawsuit about a forced kiss.” He argued that the complaint did not allege that Sarabia supplied Doe with drugs or alcohol, participated in the other alleged sexual encounters described in the lawsuit, or was present for most of the conduct underlying the broader accusations.

The argument seeks to distinguish Sarabia’s alleged actions from the other conduct described in the complaint. His legal team maintains that the claims against him should be evaluated on the specific allegations made about him rather than on the lawsuit’s wider account of events.

Doe’s allegations remain contested, and the motion represents Sarabia’s position in the litigation. The court’s eventual assessment will depend on the complaint, the arguments made by both sides and the applicable law.

Jane Doe’s Legal Team Has Yet to Respond

According to the supplied report, Doe’s attorneys had not yet submitted a response to Sarabia’s dismissal motion. Their response could address his interpretation of the allegations, the limitations arguments and whether the claims should proceed.

Until the court considers the competing arguments, the request remains a procedural step in an ongoing civil case. The absence of a response at the time of the report should not be interpreted as agreement with Sarabia’s position.

The litigation involves serious allegations, making it important to distinguish what the plaintiff alleges, what the defendant disputes and what the court has actually determined. No ruling on Sarabia’s dismissal request was reported in the supplied material.

Judge Previously Rejected Sarabia’s Request for a Gag Order

The dismissal motion came about a week after a New York judge rejected a separate request by Sarabia’s attorney for a gag order in the case.

Knox had argued that restrictions on public discussion could help prevent potential juror prejudice and protect confidential information. His filing raised concerns about possible threats, doxing, intimidation and contact outside the judicial process.

Judge Phaedra Perry-Bond rejected the request, describing it as a “side show” that could “muddy the waters and distract from the merits of the claims and defenses involved in this case.”

The decision concerned the requested restrictions on discussion of the case. It was separate from Sarabia’s later motion seeking dismissal of the claims against him and does not, by itself, resolve the underlying allegations.

New York Attorney General’s Inquiry and Cornell’s Internal Review

The supplied report states that New York Attorney General Letitia James is leading an inquiry into the matter after being designated as special prosecutor by Governor Kathy Hochul.

Cornell University has expressed support for the appointment and is conducting an internal review of its handling of the allegations, according to the report.

The civil lawsuit, the reported special-prosecutor inquiry and Cornell’s internal review are distinct processes. Each may have a different purpose, scope and set of procedures. The available information does not establish the outcome of the inquiry or the university’s review.

The developments place scrutiny on how allegations of sexual misconduct are addressed, both through the courts and within university institutions. However, conclusions about individual responsibility or institutional failures should be based on verified findings rather than allegations alone.

Report Says Sarabia’s Employment at Wells Fargo Has Ended

The supplied report also states that Sarabia was recently dismissed from his position at Wells Fargo. Sources who spoke to TMZ said his employment at the company’s Charlotte, North Carolina, branch had ended. He had reportedly worked there since 2022.

The report does not provide a detailed explanation from Wells Fargo for the employment decision. It would therefore be inappropriate to assume the specific reason for the reported departure or to treat the employment development as evidence that the lawsuit’s allegations have been proven.

Employment decisions and civil court proceedings operate under different processes. The legal claims against Sarabia remain subject to the court’s consideration, regardless of the reported change in his employment status.

What Happens Next in the Cornell Civil Case?

The next key development will be the court’s consideration of Sarabia’s motion to dismiss and any response filed by Doe’s legal team. The judge will need to assess the arguments concerning the statute of limitations and the legal sufficiency of the claims against him.

If the motion is granted, some or all claims against Sarabia could be dismissed, depending on the scope of the ruling. If it is denied, the case could continue against him, subject to further proceedings. These are possible procedural outcomes, not predictions about how the court will decide.

The broader lawsuit and the reported investigations may also proceed separately. Their outcomes have not been established by the information provided.

For now, the central issue is whether the claims against Sarabia can proceed under the applicable law. His motion presents a legal challenge to the allegations, while Doe’s complaint sets out the plaintiff’s account of the alleged events. A court ruling, rather than either side’s assertions alone, will determine the immediate status of the claims.