DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION This case involves serious allegations and factual circumstances that are highly sensitive and of a personal nature. Plaintiff Jane Doe filed this action to recover damages resulting from an alleged rape and sexual assault that occurred in 2014 when she was only fourteen years old. Plaintiff has sued four of her former schoolmates — the alleged perpetrators — and each of their respective parents and/or guardians on various theories of federal and state liability. Presently before the Court are Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. ECF Nos. 14, 27, 29, 41, 42, 47. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants BA, Julie Applebaum, and Louis Applebaum’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ECF No. 14, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED AS MOOT IN PART; Defendants Alicia Novitsky and Robert G. Novitsky’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and/or motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 27, is DENIED AS MOOT; Defendant MJN’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ECF No. 29, is GRANTED IN PART; Defendants Andrea Russell and Michael Russell’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ECF No. 41, is DENIED AS MOOT; Defendant AR’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ECF No. 42, is GRANTED IN PART; and Defendants TJH, Shannon Hay, and Timothy Hay’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ECF No. 47, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED AS MOOT IN PART. The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s federal-law claims. At this time, the Court need not address the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s state-law claims, as it does not intend to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims, and no other basis for jurisdiction exists. Before the Court dismisses the case on jurisdictional grounds, it will give Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her Complaint. FACTUAL BACKGROUND When courts evaluate motions to dismiss, they must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences from those facts in favor of the non-moving party. Nat’l Fed. of the Blind v. Scribd Inc., 97 F. Supp. 3d 565, 567 (D. Vt. 2015). Therefore, for the purposes of evaluating Defendants’ motions, the facts below are taken from Plaintiff’s Complaint and are accepted as true. In August 2014, Plaintiff was fourteen years old and about to start her freshman year at Victor High School (“Victor”). ECF No. 1 20. On August 24, 2014, Defendant BA (“BA”) invited Plaintiff to “hang out” at his house. Id. 22. BA was Plaintiff’s classmate at Victor and was also about to begin his freshman year. Id. 21. At that time, BA lived with his parents, Defendants Louis and Julie Applebaum (the “Applebaums”). Id.
27-28. Prior to August 2014, BA frequently held parties at the Applebaum house, during which he gave alcohol to those in attendance. ECF No. 1 30. The Applebaums permitted BA to host these parties and failed to take any preventative measures to ensure that alcohol that belonged to them was not available to BA or the other minors who attended his parties. Id. For example, the Applebaum’s basement had an unlocked wine cellar from which BA and other minors could easily access alcohol. Id.
