Weird story. For what it is worth, the plaintiff did not wait almost a year until Isaac was going pro to pursue the matter. Based on the complaint, her counsel delivered a preservation notice to Isaac in September 2017, which based on the alleged timeline in her complaint suggests she moved reasonably quickly after she alleges that she became infected and received the text messages described in the complaint alleging other instances of similar conduct. Further, because Purdue has sovereign immunity there was likely a notice period that had to run before she could file a complaint naming Purdue as a defendant.
I would bet the complaint was filed after an attempt at reaching an out of court settlement failed. However, I do not doubt that the timing of filing was intentional to try and create maximum incentive to settle. I would guess the statute of limitations for making a claim here is at least a year from the act (and likely a year from when the plaintiff becomes aware of the claim) so the plaintiff likely could have delayed filing until after the semester ended to avoid being on campus and having to deal with the attention that will follow.
That being said, after reading the complaint twice, I am not entirely sure what cause(s) of action is/are actually being alleged in the complaint. I am not familiar with Indiana's rules of civil procedure, but I doubt that a complaint that asserts all causes of action available under Indiana law without specifically identifying a cause of action and alleging the specific factual predicates for such cause of action would be sufficient as a matter of law.
