Jean v. Bucknell Univ.
| Decision Date | 16 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:20-CV-01722,4:20-CV-01722 |
| Citation | 534 F.Supp.3d 404 |
| Parties | John JEAN, Plaintiff, v. BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Aaron J. Freiwald, Laura Laughlin, Layser & Freiwald, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.
Adam Ryan Martin, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Harrisburg, PA, Michael E. Baughman, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant Bucknell University.
Gary L. Weber, Jessica L. Harlow, Mitchell Gallagher, P.C., Williamsport, PA, for Defendant Kappa Delta Rho - Iota Chapter.
Owen M. Coleman, Harry T. Coleman, Law Office of Harry T. Coleman, Carbondale, PA, for Defendant William C. Babcock.
E. Laurence Kates, Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Ledva & Meyers, Philadelphia, PA, Genevieve E. Barr, O'Donnel & Barr Law Group, LLP, Hanover, PA, Justin A. Tomevi, Barley Snyder, York, PA, for Defendant Dillon Duttera.
Andrew Read Benedict, Sharon Piper Donovan, Bardsley, Benedict & Cholden, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant Nicholas Zanghetti.
Pending before this Court is Defendant Bucknell University's motion to dismiss.1 On September 22, 2020, Plaintiff John Jean commenced this suit against Bucknell, the National Fraternity of Kappa Delta Rho ("Kappa Delta Rho"), the Kappa Delta Rho Iota Chapter (the "Iota Chapter") located on Bucknell's campus, and three members of the Iota Chapter.2 Jean alleges that he was hazed during an event that took place from September 10-11, 2020.3
This motion is now ripe for disposition; for the following reasons, Bucknell's motion to dismiss is granted.
In fall 2020, Jean, a sophomore at Bucknell, applied to join the Iota Chapter of the Kappa Delta Rho fraternity located on Bucknell's campus.5 His application was accepted, and on September 8, 2020, Jean received a "bid" (invitation) to "pledge" (join) the Iota Chapter.6 Soon after, members of the Iota Chapter scheduled an "initiation" for that year's "pledge class" (those students who had received and accepted bids to join the fraternity).7 The initiation was scheduled for the night of September 10, 2020, and was referred to by some members of the Iota Chapter as the first of several "lessons."8 Jean was one of seven pledges invited to the initiation.9
At the event, the pledges were instructed to play a drinking game.10 To play, each would take a turn drinking from a two-liter bottle of vodka.11 Regardless of how much alcohol was left, the last pledge to drink was required to finish the remainder of the bottle.12 The purpose of the game seems to be for each pledge to drink enough from the bottle so as to prevent the last pledge from having to consume a disproportionately large amount.13 Throughout the game, members of the Iota Chapter "screamed, chanted, and cheered," which encouraged and pressured the pledges to drink.14
Jean was the third pledge to drink from the bottle, which became empty by the fifth pledge.15 After finishing the game, the pledges were instructed to continue drinking beer and hard liquor.16 Jean, who is 5’4" and weighs 130 pounds, became extremely inebriated.17 Without elaborating on the details, Jean alleges that he was violently hazed throughout evening, and that the hazing was led by Defendants William Babcock (the Iota Chapter president) and Dillon Duttera (the Iota Chapter "pledge master").18 At some point, Jean attempted to exit the fraternity house to return to his dorm, but was not allowed to leave.19
When Jean was later able to leave the fraternity house, he was confronted outside by Defendant Nicholas Zanghetti, one of the seven Iota Chapter pledges in Jean's pledge class.20 Zanghetti told Jean not to leave, and then punched him in the face.21 Jean fell and hit his head on the ground.22 He began vomiting, and lost consciousness.23
A Bucknell Safety Officer who witnessed this happen called 911, although he did not ultimately report the incident to the police.24 After being transported to a nearby hospital, Jean was treated for alcohol poisoning and a head-injury /concussion (caused by Zanghetti).25 Jean was further treated for extensive bruising on his face, arms, torso, legs, and backside from being punched and kicked at the initiation.26 He also suffered cigarette burns on his feet.27
Following these events, Jean alleges that Bucknell attempted to keep word of what happened within "campus walls" in an effort to avoid taking adverse or disciplinary action against the involved students or the Iota Chapter.28 To this end, Jean claims that Bucknell's Director of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs Natalie Brewster neglected to conduct "any real investigation into what happened."29 Jean further maintains that Bucknell has failed to meaningfully enforce its anti-hazing policies.30 It is not clear whether any fraternity members or the Iota Chapter were ever punished in relation to this incident.
In 2009, Bucknell banned the Iota Chapter from campus for hazing for three years.31 At the same time, Kappa Delta Rho National also revoked the chapter's recognition for four years.32 The Iota Chapter eventually returned to campus, and it was required to remain dry (alcohol-free) for one year.33 The Complaint does not allege that any disciplinary action has been taken against the Iota Chapter since it returned to campus. However, the Complaint does assert that Bucknell has created "a permissive campus environment for fraternity life," which has resulted in students drinking on a regular basis "in the open, out in the street, on campus, within full view of campus security and administration officials."34
On September 22, 2020, Jean filed suit against Bucknell, Kappa Delta Rho, the Iota Chapter, and three members of the Iota Chapter (Babcock, Duttera, and Zanghetti).35 The Complaint asserts three claims against Bucknell. These three claims are for hazing (Count I), negligence (Count IV), and negligence per se (Count VI).36 Bucknell now seeks to dismiss all counts against it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).37
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court dismisses a complaint, in whole or in part, if the plaintiff has failed to "state a claim upon which relief can be granted." A motion to dismiss "tests the legal sufficiency of a pleading"38 and "streamlines litigation by dispensing with needless discovery and factfinding."39 " Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes a court to dismiss a claim on the basis of a dispositive issue of law."40 This is true of any claim, "without regard to whether it is based on an outlandish legal theory or on a close but ultimately unavailing one."41
Following the Roberts Court's "civil procedure revival,"42 the landmark decisions of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly43 and Ashcroft v. Iqbal44 tightened the standard that district courts must apply to 12(b)(6) motions.45 These cases "retired" the lenient "no-set-of-facts test" set forth in Conley v. Gibson and replaced it with a more exacting "plausibility" standard.46
Accordingly, after Twombly and Iqbal , "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ "47 "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."48 "Although the plausibility standard does not impose a probability requirement, it does require a pleading to show more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully."49 Moreover, "[a]sking for plausible grounds ... calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [wrongdoing]."50
The plausibility determination is "a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense."51 No matter the context, however, "[w]here a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant's liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’ "52
When disposing of a motion to dismiss, the Court "accept[s] as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw[s] all inferences from the facts alleged in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff]."53 However, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in the complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions."54 "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."55
As a matter of procedure, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has instructed that:
Under the pleading regime established by Twombly and Iqbal , a court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps. First, it must tak[e] note of the elements [the] plaintiff must plead to state a claim. Second, it should identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Finally, [w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, [the] court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.56
Bucknell first seeks to dismiss Jean's negligence claim (Count IV) on the basis that Bucknell owed no legal duty to Jean. In response, Jean sets forth two theories purportedly establishing Bucknell's duty of care. First, while acknowledging no recognized duty extending to the facts of this case,57 Jean nevertheless insists that the creation of a new common-law duty is warranted under Althaus ex rel. Althaus v. Cohen .58 Second, Jean cites three provisions of the Restatement (Second) of Torts as imposing a common-law duty on Bucknell.
The Court concludes that Bucknell did not have a duty to Jean under these facts....
To continue reading
Request your trial