Hall v. Millersville Univ.

Decision Date05 September 2019
Docket NumberCIVIL ACTION NO. 17-220
Citation400 F.Supp.3d 252
Parties John J. HALL and Jeanette A. Hall, as Administrators and Personal Representatives of the Estate of Karlie A. Hall, and in their own right as Decedent's heirs-at-law, Plaintiffs, v. MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, Sara Wiberg, Individually and as an Employee of Millersville University, Acacia National Fraternity, Acacia Fraternity Chapter Number 84, Colin Herbine, Individually and as an Agent of Acacia National Fraternity and Acacia Fraternity Chapter No. 84, Jack Milito, Individually and as an Agent of Acacia National Fraternity and Acacia Fraternity Chapter No. 84, Nicholas Hench, Individually and as an Agent of Acacia National Fraternity and Acacia Fraternity Chapter No. 84, Sean Ebert, Individually and as an Agent of Acacia National Fraternity and Acacia Fraternity Chapter No. 84, Nigale Quiles, Individually and as an Agent of Acacia National Fraternity and Acacia Fraternity Chapter No. 84; and John Does #1-5, Individually and as Agents of Acacia National Fraternity and Acacia Fraternity Chapter No. 84, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Brian D. Kent, Michael Stewart Ryan, Laffey, Bucci & Kent, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiffs.

Kevin R. Bradford, Stephen R. Kovatis, Office of Attorney General, Gregory M. Mallon, Jr., Theodore M. Schaer, Zarwin Baum Devito Kaplan Schaer & Toddy, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Ian Thomas Baxter, Robert John Balch, Post & Schell, P.C., Allentown, PA, Jaskiran K. Samra, Jennifer A. Riso, Julia Levitskaia, Michael Osborne, Patrick R. Ball, Stevie B. Newton, Archer Norris PLC, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Smith, District Judge

This tragic case arises from a man's brutal murder of his 18-year-old girlfriend in her university dorm room after they attended a fraternity party together. The victim's parents attribute some responsibility for the murder to the university, the local fraternity chapter and certain of its members who hosted the party their daughter and her boyfriend attended, and that chapter's national fraternal organization. Specifically, they assert negligence claims against each of the fraternity defendants and a Title IX claim against the university. At bottom, the plaintiffs believe that each of the defendants, through their own actions, contributed to the chain of events that allowed their daughter's boyfriend to strangle her to death in the early morning hours of February 8, 2015. The defendants respond that these events, while undoubtedly heart-rending, can only legally be attributed to the boyfriend and his unforeseeable, extraordinary act of murder. Thus, they have moved for summary judgment in their favor.

While undoubtedly sympathetic to the plaintiffs' loss, the court is constrained to agree with the defendants. As to the national fraternity, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has unequivocally held that a national fraternity is not liable under the social host doctrine for the acts of its chapters. That jurisprudence does not provide any exception for a national fraternity, like the defendant here, that took on some role in assisting the chapter return to campus after the university deactivated it, where there is no evidence that the national fraternity had the power or resources to control the chapter's day-to-day activities, including the party at issue. In contrast, the social host doctrine undoubtedly applies to the local chapter defendants who served alcohol to minors, but no proximate cause exists over such an unforeseeable, extraordinary act of violence that occurred only after the victim and her boyfriend had already left the party. Lastly, although the court would find the evidence of the university's indifference to the boyfriend's abuse sufficient to defeat summary judgment if he were a student at the defendant university, no caselaw supports extending Title IX liability to cover harassment at the hands of a student's own guest.

The court emphasizes the limited nature of its role in assessing the events at issue. The question for the court to answer is not whether everyone who played any role in the events acted ethically but only whether the facts here can establish civil liability. Ultimately, the answer to that limited question is no. Therefore, the court will grant the defendants' motions for summary judgment.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The plaintiffs, Jeannette A. Hall and John J. Hall, as administrators and personal representatives of the Estate of Karlie A. Hall, and in their own right as the decedent's heirs-at-law, commenced this action by filing a complaint on January 17, 2017. Compl., Doc. No. 1. The complaint asserted claims for deliberate indifference under Title IX, substantive due process violations and state-created danger under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a survival action against Millersville University ("Millersville" or the "University") and Sara Wiberg ("Wiberg")—the resident assistant for the dormitory where the decedent, Karlie A. Hall ("Karlie"), lived; as well as a survival action under negligence and negligence per se theories against Acacia National Fraternity ("Acacia"); Acacia Fraternity, Millersville Chapter ("Chapter 84" or the "Chapter"); and Chapter 84 individual members Colin Herbine ("Herbine"), Jack Milito ("Milito"), Nicholas Hench ("Hench"), Sean Ebert ("Ebert"), Nigale Quiles ("Quiles"), and John Does 1–5. Id. at ¶¶ 8–19, 88–154. The plaintiffs also asserted wrongful death claims against all defendants. Id. at ¶¶ 145–54.

Ebert, Millersville and Wiberg, and Hench filed separate motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on February 27, 2017, March 7, 2017, and March 13, 2017, respectively. Doc. Nos. 23, 44, 45. On March 13, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Ebert's motion to dismiss. Doc. No. 46. Chapter 84 and the individual member defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss on March 20, 2017.1 Doc. No. 55. The plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Hench's individual motion to dismiss on March 24, 2017. Doc. No. 58. Ebert filed a reply in further support of his individual motion to dismiss on March 27, 2017. Doc. No. 59. Acacia moved to dismiss on March 28, 2017. Doc. No. 60. The plaintiffs filed separate responses in opposition to Chapter 84's (with the individual defendants) and Millersville and Wiberg's motions to dismiss on April 3 and 4, 2017, respectively. Doc. Nos. 61, 62. On April 10, 2017, Milito filed a reply to the plaintiffs' response in opposition to his motion.2 Doc. No. 65. Millersville and Wiberg filed their reply to the plaintiffs' opposition on April 11, 2017. Doc. No. 68.

On April 21, 2017, the court granted the plaintiffs' motions for leave to file sur-replies to Milito's and Millersville and Wiberg's replies to their opposition briefs, which they filed on May 1, 2017. Doc. Nos. 69–72, 75. Chapter 84 (with the individual members) and Hench filed their separate replies to the plaintiffs' oppositions on April 24, 2017. Doc. Nos. 73–74. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a sur-reply to Chapter 84 and the individual members' reply on May 2, 2017, which the plaintiffs filed on May 12, 2017. Doc. Nos. 78, 80. The plaintiffs filed their response in opposition to Acacia's motion to dismiss on May 10, 2017. Doc. No. 79. Chapter 84 (with the individual members) and Acacia filed their responses in further support of their motions to dismiss on May 12, 2017, and June 16, 2017, respectively. Doc. Nos. 80, 83.

After oral argument on July 27, 2017, the court denied the motions to dismiss separately filed by Ebert, Hench, Chapter 84 (with its individual members), and Acacia, without prejudice to these defendants re-raising their arguments in motions for summary judgment. Sept. 29, 2017 Order at 2, 4, Doc. No. 87. The court also denied in part and granted in part Millersville and Wiberg's motion, dismissing with prejudice the Title IX claims against Wiberg (to which the plaintiffs did not object), the section 1983 individual liability claims against Wiberg based on qualified immunity, and the section 1983 official capacity claims against Wiberg. Id. at 2–3 and n.1, 2. The court further dismissed without prejudice the section 1983 claim against Millersville based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. Id. at 3 and n.3.

The defendants then filed separate answers to the complaint between October 11 and 13, 2017. Doc. Nos. 88–95. On October 31, 2017, the court entered a scheduling order allowing the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint to identify the fictitious defendants by March 2, 2018, Scheduling Order at 2, Doc. No. 98, but the plaintiffs declined to do so. By stipulation of the parties, the court dismissed Milito from the action on February 15, 2018, and Ebert from the action on September 4, 2018. Doc. Nos. 108, 137.

Millersville filed a motion for summary judgment on September 17, 2018. Doc. No. 147. The plaintiffs filed a response in opposition on October 17, 2018. Doc. No. 148. Acacia filed its motion for summary judgment on October 19, 2018. Millersville filed a reply in response to the plaintiffs' opposition brief on November 9, 2018. Doc. No. 151. The plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Acacia's summary judgment motion on November 9, 2018. Doc. No. 152. The plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Chapter 84 and the remaining individual members' (Herbine and Quiles) motion for summary judgment on November 9, 2018. Doc. No. 153. Acacia and Chapter 84 filed separate replies in further support of their summary judgment motion on November 16, 2018. Doc. Nos. 157, 158. The court heard oral argument on the parties' briefing on November 29, 2018. The summary judgment motions are now ripe for review.3

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND4
A. Karlie Begins a Relationship with Gregorio Orrostieta, whom She Continues Dating at Millersville

Karlie met and began dating Gregorio Orrostieta ("Orrostieta") in March 2014, towards the end of her senior year of high...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Russell v. Educ. Comm'n for Foreign Med. Graduates
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • March 23, 2020
    ...forces for which the actor is not responsible, and lapse of time between an actor's conduct and the harm. See Hall v. Millersville Univ., 400 F. Supp. 3d 252, 273 (E.D. Pa. 2019) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 433). These considerations rendercausation a highly individualized inqui......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT