19.  OSU hired Dr. Strauss in 1978 as an assistant professor of medicine. From  1981 to 1995, Strauss was the university’s team doctor and had contact with athletes in  baseball, cheerleading, cross country, fencing, football, gymnastics, ice hockey,  lacrosse, soccer, swimming, tennis, track, volleyball, and wrestling.   20.  Dr. Strauss was employed by OSU until he retired in 1998. Dr. Strauss  was a prolific sexual predator— he is estimated to have sexually assaulted, abused,  battered, molested, and/or harassed 1,500 to 2,500 male student athletes during his 20- year tenure at Ohio State.    21.  To many at OSU, Dr. Strauss was known simply as “Doc.” The student  athletes, however, had a different nickname for Dr. Strauss: “Dr. Jelly Paws.” Dr. Strauss  earned the nickname from his notoriously hands-on physical examinations.   22.  For decades, Dr. Strauss was a fixture in the locker rooms, showers, and  saunas of Larkins Hall, the former student and faculty recreation center on the Ohio State  campus that housed the wrestling, gymnastics, and swimming teams.    23.  A former OSU wrestling coach described Larkins Hall as “a cesspool of  deviancy,” saying “Coaching my athletes in Larkins Hall was one of the most difficult  things I ever did.”2   2  Rachael Bade and John Bresnahan, ‘A cesspool of deviancy’: New claims of voyeurism  test  Jordan  denials,  66.  Plaintiffs bring this action individually and pursuant to Federal Rule of  Civil Procedure 23 (b)(3) or (c)(4) on behalf of themselves and the following  “Nationwide Class”:  All male students or student-athletes of Ohio State University who (1) were  examined by Dr. Richard Strauss at Ohio State University or (2) participated in a  varsity athletic sport that utilized the locker rooms, showers, and/or saunas at  Larkins Hall at any time between 1978 and 1998.   67.  The Classes consists of hundreds, if not thousands, of men throughout the  United States, making joinder impracticable, in satisfaction of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1).  The exact size of the Class and the identities of the individual members are ascertainable  through records maintained by the Ohio State.   68.  The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the Classes. The claims of the  Plaintiff and the Classes are based on the same legal theories and arise from the same  factual pattern involving the Defendant’s misconduct.    69.  There are many questions of law and fact common to the claims of  Plaintiffs and the Class, and those questions predominate over any questions that may  affect only individual Class members within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2),  (b)(3), and (c)(4).    70.  Common questions of fact or common questions of law affecting members  of the Class include, but are not limited to, the following:  a. Whether Defendant owed a legal duty to the members of the Class  under federal and/or state law?   Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 12 of 23  PAGEID #: 12 Page 13  b. Whether Defendant violated Title IX of 20 U.S.C. §1681?  c. Whether Defendant violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983?  d. Whether Defendant displayed deliberate indifference to the sexual  abuse, assaults, and discrimination at Ohio State?   e. Whether Defendant had knowledge or knew that Richard Strauss  was engaging in sexual abuse of Ohio State’s male students and  student-athletes?  f. Whether Plaintiffs were damaged by the violations caused by  Defendants?   71.  Absent a class action, most of the members of the Class would find the  cost of litigating their claims to be prohibitive and would have no effective remedy. The  class treatment of common questions of law and fact is also superior to multiple  individual actions or piecemeal litigation, particularly as to liability, in that it conserves  the resources of the courts and the litigants and promotes the consistency and efficiency  of adjudication.   72.  Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of  the Class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel with substantial experience in prosecuting  complex litigation and class actions, and who have expertise in prosecuting personal  injury, sexual abuse, and civil rights cases on behalf of vulnerable victims.    73.  Plaintiffs and their counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this  action on behalf of the other Class members, and they have the financial resources and  experience in handling sex abuse cases to do so.   74.  Neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel have any interests adverse to those of  Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 13 of 23  PAGEID #: 13 Page 14  the other members of the Class.    75.  Plaintiffs and the Class will have personal injury damages that are  individualized, but those can be managed separately.  