CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
BRIAN GARRETT; NICHOLAS NUTTER, et al.,*
Plaintiffs,

EDWARD GONZALES, JOHN ANTOGNOLI, KENT KILGORE, ROGER BEEDON, ADAM PLOUSE, DANIEL RITCHIE, MICHAEL SCHYCK, DR. MARK CHRYSTAL, JOEL DAVIS, and JOHN DOES 1–2, 4–6, 8, 10–15, 17, 19, 21–25, 27, 29–33, 35–46, 48, 50–51, 53, 56–59, 61, 62, 64, 69, 75, 77, 85–86, and 88–92, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (21-3972); ROCKY RATLIFF (21-3974); ERIC SMITH, MARK COLEMAN, WILLIAM KNIGHT, JACK CAHILL, SCOTT OVERHOLT, ELMER LONG, RYAN HENRY, MICHAEL GLANE, CHRISTOPHER PERKINS, MICHAEL CALDWELL, THOMAS ROEHLIG, BRIAN ROSKOVICH, RICK MONGE, THOMAS LISY, ANASTACIO TITO VAZQUEZ, JR., JOHN MACDONALD, JR.; MAROON MONDALEK, LEO DISABATO, PETER NATHANSON, JEFFREY LADROW, ANTHONY SENTIERI, and JOHN DOES 1–15 and 17–19 (21-3982); MICHAEL ALF, GARY TILL, ALLEN NOVAKOWSKI; CHRIS ARMSTRONG, and JOHN DOES 93–97 and 99–101, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (21-4070); MICHAEL CANALES and JOHN DOE 20 (21-4128),
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
   Nos. 21-3972 /3974
/3982 /4070 /4128
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
Nos. 18-cv-00692 (21-3972); 19-cv-04746 (21-3974); 19-cv-02462 (21-3982); 21-cv-02542 (21-
4070); 21-cv-02562 (21-4128) —Michael H. Watson, District Judge.
Argued: October 25, 2022
Decided and Filed: February 15, 2023
Before: GUY, WHITE, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. From the late 1970s to the late 1990s, Dr. Richard Strauss sexually abused hundreds of students at The Ohio State University. In 2018, former Ohio State student-athletes came forward alleging that Strauss had abused them and that Ohio State had covered it up. Hundreds of survivors sued Ohio State under Title IX, including the two groups of plaintiffs before us. The district court dismissed the claims as time-barred. Before we heard this appeal, another panel of this court reversed the district court’s order as it pertained to two other groups of plaintiffs. See Snyder-Hill v. Ohio State Univ., 48 F.4th 686 (6th Cir. 2022). The holding in Snyder-Hill applies equally to these plaintiffs’ claims, so we VACATE the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims as untimely. Plaintiffs before us also bring two other claims: one group of plaintiffs appeals the dismissal of their Title IX retaliation claims, and all plaintiffs appeal the district court’s denial of their motions for recusal. On those claims we AFFIRM. We REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.