Marcantonio v. Dudzinski

• Decision Date: 17 December 2015
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 3:15-cv-00029
• Citation: 155 F.Supp.3d 619
• Parties: Anthony Marcantonio, Plaintiff, v. Kyle Dudzinski et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia

155 F.Supp.3d 619

Anthony Marcantonio, Plaintiff,

v.Kyle Dudzinski et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-00029

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Charlottesville Division .

Signed December 17, 2015

Bridget Ann Zerner, John J.E. Markham, II, Markham & Read, Boston, MA, Jonathan Martin Rogers, Floyd, VA, for Plaintiff.

Charles Garrison Meyer, III, Lindsey Anne Lewis, Leclair Ryan, PC, Erin Boyd Ashwell, John Benjamin Rottenborn, Thomas T. Cullen, Woods Rogers PLC, Timothy J. Heaphy, Lewis Franklin Powell, III, Alexandra Leigh Klein, Hunton & Williams LLP, Richmond, VA, John Patrick Rowan, Meghan Mitchell Cloud, McGuire Woods LLP, Washington, DC, Harry Robert Yates, III, Leclair Ryan, Dustin Thomas Rosser, John Peter Cattano, Central Virginia Litigation, PLC, John Walter Zunka, Richard Hustis Milnor, Elizabeth Camp Southall, Zunka, Milnor & Carter, Ltd., Charlottesville, VA, Stephen Anthony Horvath, Andrew Rulon Alder, Bancroft, McGavin, Horvath, & Judkins, PC, Fairfax, VA, Michael Wayne Robinson, Venable LLP, Tysons Corner, VA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

NORMAN K. MOON

, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This case is before the Court after briefing and oral argument on Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Anthony Marcantonio (“Plaintiff”) filed this diversity action against former teammates on the University of Virginia (“UVA”) men's swim team for several torts under Virginia law.¹ Generally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants subjected him to assorted forms of hazing, threats, verbal abuse, intimidation, and unwanted touching or limitations on his physical movement. The crux of the Complaint is the purported “hazing” of new swim team members by upperclassmen that took place one evening at an off-campus residence known as the “Swim House.” Plaintiff also contends that, as part of Defendants' effort to cover up their alleged misdeeds, they retaliated against him such that he no longer continued swimming for UVA and left the school.

There are five defendants, all of whom have filed a motion to dismiss: Kyle Dudzinski; Luke Papendick; Charles Rommel; David Ingraham; and Jacob Pearce. The Complaint alleges ten counts, all against each Defendant, for assault, battery, false imprisonment, hazing, tortious interference with contractual relations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, punitive damages, common law and statutory conspiracy, and negligence. For the reasons discussed below, the motions to dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss merely tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint to determine whether the plaintiff has properly stated a claim; “it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.” Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir.1992)

. Although a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his entitle [ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (internal citations omitted). A court need not “accept the legal conclusions drawn from the facts” or “accept as true unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.” Eastern Shore Markets, Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir.2000)

. “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, with all allegations in the complaint taken as true and all reasonable inferences drawn in the plaintiff's favor. Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 346 (4th Cir.2005). Rule 12(b)(6) does “not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955.

FACTS AS ALLEGED

Plaintiff's Background and Matriculation to UVA

Plaintiff Anthony Marcantonio graduated high school in 2013 as an honor student. Compl. ¶ 11. During his high school days, he excelled in competitive swimming, devoting many morning, evenings, and weekends to practice and eventually developing a national reputation in the amateur swimming community due to his exploits. Compl. ¶¶ 12-14. Consequently, several universities recruited him for their respective swim teams, and Plaintiff welcomed the opportunity to attend a top-flight academic institution with a swimming team he hoped could springboard him into the world of professional or Olympic swimming. Compl. ¶¶ 14-16.

The University of Virginia, Plaintiff believed, presented such an opportunity. UVA's swimming coach impressed Plaintiff, who was particularly enamored with the supportive environment surrounding the team. Compl. ¶ 17. The “anti-hazing” policy in UVA's Student Handbook—which forbade “any action ... by members of a student organization towards [another] member[ ] ... designed to or produc[ing] mental or physical harassment, discomfort, or ridicule”—also appealed to Plaintiff, as did the provision of the UVA Standards of Conduct prohibiting hazing and “physical assault.” Compl. ¶ 18. These aspects, as well as the University's stellar reputation generally and in academics specifically, led Plaintiff to matriculate to UVA in August 2014 to study and to swim.² Compl. ¶¶ 19-20, 22.

Emails from “Mr. Mean”

After Plaintiff arrived on Grounds, Defendants Dudzinski and Papendick—upperclass members of the swim team—called a meeting of the first-year swimmers and informed them that “team bonding” would take place during a so-called “welcome week.” Compl. ¶ 23. Shortly thereafter, on the evening of August 26, 2014, Plaintiff received an email from the aptly-named “Mr. Mean,” in actuality an email account persona created by Defendants Dudzinski, Papendick, Rommel, Ingraham, and Pearce. The email—“joint[ly] author[ed]” by “defendants”—was addressed to “[d]earrest [sic ] shitcuts” (i.e. , the first-year swimmers) who Mr. Mean was “fucking embarrassed” to welcome to UVA on account of their being “gender-neutral dick sucks” (whatever that means). Compl. ¶¶ 24, 26(xliii). Mr. Mean emphasized that “what I say, goes,” announced that the first event of Welcome Week would commence the next day, and instructed the first-year swimmers to arrive at the appointed time at 1100 Wertland Street, Charlottesville, Virginia. Id . True to his moniker, Mr. Mean closed by warning the first-years that (1) if they arrived even one second early or late, he would sodomize their future fiancées in front of them, and (2) if they “tell a soul” about the Swim House rendezvous, they would be sodomized with a “dry ice dildo we have packed away,” so they better “keep [their] FUCKING MOUTHS SHUT.” Compl. ¶ 24 (emphasis added). The next day (but prior to the appointed arrival time), Mr. Mean sent another profane, but much shorter, email to the first-year swimmers moving the appointed meeting time. Id .

Plaintiff was “unsure” whether the emails were a joke or whether he should be “concerned or fearful” due to them. Compl. ¶ 25. But he “did not want to appear squeamish” to his teammates, so he arrived at the appointed time to 1100 Wertland Street, known as the “Swim House” because upperclass swimmers lived there. Id . What happened next, Plaintiff alleges, “was instigated by the defendants who were the organizers [of] and who participated” in the events at the Swim House. Compl. ¶ 26.

Events at the Swim House

When Plaintiff arrived, the Swim House's interior was dark except for a strobe light, and “heavy-metal, satanic music” blared. Compl. ¶ 26(i). Once inside, Plaintiff saw another first-year who appeared frightened. Compl. ¶ 26(ii). An upperclassman instructed him to sit down and to remove his tie and “anything else he didn't want to get wet.” Compl. ¶ 26(iii). Defendant Rommel entered the room and yelled at Plaintiff, and Defendant Dudzinski appeared, asking the first-years if they were scared. Compl. ¶¶ 26(iv)-(v). Defendant Ingraham instructed the first-years to say “pussy,” and then “defendants” placed buckets on the first-years' heads. Compl. ¶ 26(vii). “Defendants” taunted and insulted them. Compl. ¶ 26(viii). Plaintiff began to fear for his safety. Compl. ¶ 26(ix). “[D]efendants” then removed the buckets, instructing the first-years to assemble in a line and placing them accordingly. Compl. ¶ 26(x). Defendants Dudzinski and Ingraham came “menacingly close” to Plaintiff “with sudden and threatening movements and grunts” during this time. Compl. ¶ 26(xi).

“Defendants” then blindfolded the first-years, including Plaintiff, with dirty ties and cummerbunds and screamed at them to perform an “Elephant Walk” (i.e. , to reach between their legs to grab the genitals of the person behind them). Compl. ¶¶ 26(xii)-(xiii). This Elephant Walk procession ambled into a dark bathroom, where Plaintiff “felt closed in” and became disoriented and “more concerned.” Compl. ¶ 26(xv). Once inside, Defendant Pearce yelled that the first-years “had one hour” and slammed the door. Compl. ¶ 26(xvi). The first-years turned on the bathroom lights, which revealed several containers of alcohol and other liquids; all methods of pouring out the containers (the sink, toilet, windows, and shower drain) were blocked or duct-taped shut. Compl. ¶ 26(xvii). “Defendants” screamed at the first-years to turn off the lights and unidentified individuals yelled at them to drink all the liquids immediately, lest they “get the dry-ice dildo” treatment for pouring any out. Compl. ¶ 26(xviii). One first-year complained of an injury caused by Defendant Rommel when shards of a glass he shattered on the floor ricocheted into the first-year's eye. Compl. ¶ 26(xix).

For roughly the next hour, “defendants” periodically opened the bathroom door to demand an empty bottle as proof of consumption. Compl. ¶ 26(xxi)...