Upload
philadelphiamagazine
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 1/41
1
JURY OF TWELVE (12) IS DEMANDEDASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IS REQUIRED
MARCIANO & MACAVOY, P.C.BY: KEVIN R. MARCIANO, ESQUIRE
BY: PATRICK D. MACAVOY, ESQUIREID NOS. 65901/209005 Attorneys for Plaintiff16 W. Front StreetMedia, PA 19063(610) [email protected] [email protected]
THE FIERBERG NATIONAL LAW GROUP, PLLCBY: DOUGLAS E. FIERBERG, ESQUIREBY: DOUGLAS C. MELCHER, ESQUIRE
Admitted Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for PlaintiffFifth Floor – Centurion Center2001 L Street, NWWashington, DC 20036(202) [email protected]@tfnlgroup.com ____________________________________________________________________________
:RICHARD A. BRAHAM, Administrator : PHILADELPHIA COUNTYof the ESTATE OF : COURT OF COMMON PLEASMARQUISE A. BRAHAM :141-45 250th Street :Rosedale, NY 11422 :
:Plaintiff, :
:v. : August Term, 2015
:THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE :UNIVERSITY, a Non-Profit :Educational Corporation : No. 0042014801 S. Broad Street, Suite 110 :The Navy Yard :Philadelphia, PA 19112 :
and :
Case ID: 150804201
Filed and Attested by PROTHONOTARY
15 DEC 2015 03:17 pm J. OSTROWSKI
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 2/41
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 3/41
3
ANDREW O’CONNOR, Individually and as :an agent of The Grand Chapter of Phi Sigma :Kappa and Iota Septaton Corporation of Phi :Sigma Kappa Fraternity :519 Bonsall Road :
Ridley Park, PA 19078 ::Defendants. :
____________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT – 2O Other Personal Injury
NOTICE TO DEFEND
"NOTICE"
"You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend againstthe claims set forth in the following pages, you must takeaction within twenty (20) days after this complaint andnotice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the courtyour defenses or objections to the claims set forth againstyou. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered againstyou by the court without further notice for any moneyclaimed in the complaint or for any other claim or reliefrequested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or propertyor other rights important to you.
"YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR
LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE ALAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO ORTELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TOFIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP."THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITHINFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAYOFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS ATA REDUCED FEE FOR NO FEE.
Philadelphia Bar AssociationLawyer Referral
and Information ServiceOne Reading Center
Philadelphia, PA 19107(215) 238-6333
TTY (215) 451-6197
"AVISO"
"Le han demando a usted en la corte. Si usted quieredefenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las páginassiguientes, usted tiene veinte (20) diás de plazo al partir dela fecha de la demanda y la notificación. Hace falta asentaruna comparencia escrita o en persona o con un abogado yentregar a la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o susobjeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Seaavisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomará medidasy puede continuar la demanda en contra suya sin previo avisoo notificación. Además, la corte puede decidir a favor deldemandante y requiere que usted cumpla con todas las provisiones de esta demanda. Usted puede perder dinero osus propiedades u otros derechos importantes para usted.
"LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN AGOGADOINMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TALSERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME PORTELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SEENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUARDONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIALEGAL." ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PODER PROVEERDE USTED LA INFORMACIÓN SOBRE LASAGENCIAS QUE PUEDEN OFRECER SERVICIOSJURÍDICOS A LAS PERSONAS ELEGIBLES EN UNHONORARIO REDUCIDO PARA NINGÚNHONORARIO.
Asociacion de Licenciadosde FiladelfiaServicio de Referencia e
Informacion LegalOne Reading Center
Philadelphia, PA 19107(215) 238-6333
TTY (215) 451-6197
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 4/41
2
JURY OF TWELVE (12) IS DEMANDEDASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IS REQUIRED
MARCIANO & MACAVOY, P.C.BY: KEVIN R. MARCIANO, ESQUIRE
BY: PATRICK D. MACAVOY, ESQUIREID NOS. 65901/209005 Attorneys for Plaintiff16 W. Front StreetMedia, PA 19063(610) [email protected] [email protected]
THE FIERBERG NATIONAL LAW GROUP, PLLCBY: DOUGLAS E. FIERBERG, ESQUIREBY: DOUGLAS C. MELCHER, ESQUIRE
Admitted Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for PlaintiffFifth Floor – Centurion Center2001 L Street, NWWashington, DC 20036(202) [email protected]@tfnlgroup.com ____________________________________________________________________________
:RICHARD A. BRAHAM, Administrator : PHILADELPHIA COUNTYof the ESTATE OF : COURT OF COMMON PLEASMARQUISE A. BRAHAM :141-45 250th Street :Rosedale, NY 11422 :
:Plaintiff, :
:v. : August Term, 2015
:THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE :UNIVERSITY, a Non-Profit :Educational Corporation : No. 0042014801 S. Broad Street, Suite 110 :The Navy Yard :Philadelphia, PA 19112 :
and :
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 5/41
3
KARLY BISH, Individually and as an :agent of The Pennsylvania State University :405 Toby Road :Kersey, PA 15846-1217 :
and :
MARIA A. MOSLEY, Individually and as an :agent of The Pennsylvania State University :713 Mary Street :Houtzdale, PA 16651-1138 :
and :THE GRAND CHAPTER OF PHI SIGMA :KAPPA, a Delaware Non-Profit Corporation :2925 East 96th Street :Indianapolis, IN 46240 :Serve: The Corporation Trust Company :Corporation Trust Center :
1209 Orange Street :Wilmington, DE 19801 :and :
IOTA SEPTATON CORPORATION OF :PHI SIGMA KAPPA FRATERNITY, :a Pennsylvania Non-Profit Corporation, :Individually and as an agent of The Grand :Chapter of Phi Sigma Kappa :129 E. 24th Avenue :Altoona, PA 16601 :
and :ERIC TRAISTER, Individually and as :an agent of The Grand Chapter of Phi Sigma :Kappa and Iota Septaton Corporation of Phi :Sigma Kappa Fraternity :68 Oak Ridge Drive :Voorhees, NJ 08043-1536 :
and :JOHN DOES 1-100, Individually and as :agents of The Grand Chapter of Phi Sigma :Kappa and Iota Septaton Corporation of Phi :Sigma Kappa Fraternity :129 E. 24th Avenue :Altoona, PA 16601 :
And :
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 6/41
4
ANDREW O’CONNOR , Individually and as :an agent of The Grand Chapter of Phi Sigma :Kappa and Iota Septaton Corporation of Phi :Sigma Kappa Fraternity :519 Bonsall Road :
Ridley Park, PA 19078 ::Defendants. :
____________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, RICHARD A. BRAHAM, administrator of the ESTATE OF MARQUISE A.
BRAHAM, through his attorneys, for his Complaint against the above-referenced Defendants,
states as follows:Introduction
1. This is a death case arising from violent hazing Marquise A. Braham suffered
during his freshman year at Pennsylvania State University(“Penn State”) , Altoona, and the
absolute failure by Penn State and its employees to stop the brutal hazing, to intervene to protec
Marquise as his physical and emotional health were visibly deteriorating, or to notify his family
and obtain the assistance Marquise authorized and needed when numerous Penn State staff
directly observed him to be in extreme, dangerous psychological crisis. As a result, Marquise
took his own life by jumping from the roof of the Long Island Marriott Hotel in Uniondale, New
York.
2. Marquise regularly and directly made Penn State staff aware of the fact he was
being physically hurt andhazed by brothers in the Phi Sigma Kappa Fraternity (“Phi Sig”). By
December 2013, Penn State staff knew Marquise had been hazed for months, including, among
other things, being forced to consume gross amounts of alcohol, chug bottles of Listerine,
swallow live fish, fight fellow pledges; being burned with candle wax, deprived of sleep for 89
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 7/41
5
hours, locked in a room with other pledges, alcohol, and a trashcan to catch their vomit; having
gun held to his head; and being forced to kill, gut, and skin animals.
3. Penn State staff knew Marquise was suffering physically, psychologically, and
academically. Rather than intervene, report, and prevent such illegal misconduct from
continuing, as required by Pennsylvania law and Penn State’s own po licies and procedures, Penn
State disregarded this information, failed to act, and actually counseled Marquise over a period
of months to endure the hazing, telling him, among other things: “You poor thing . . . Your
keeping a good spirit tho. Keep your chin up boo!! . . . Stay strong little buddy. You are almos
done and you’ve been so strong. Your kicking ass!=).” 4. By March 2014, Penn State staff observed that Marquise was in a dangerous
psychological crisis as a result of being hazed. Upon information and belief, Penn State staff
finally reported their concerns about Marquise’s health and circumstances to senior
administrators at Penn State. No action was taken to protect Marquise, intervene, or advise his
family of his crisis, despite Marquise having executed FERPA waivers, and Penn State’s own
privacy policies authorizing Penn State to communicate directly with his family concerning
emergency health matters.
5. Marquise left Penn State’s campus, went to confession before a priest to repent
for his fraternity “sins,” and took his own life, leaving his family forever devastated and
searching for answers. Marquise’s family brought their questions to Penn State, but Penn State
kept secret from them the fact that multiple Penn State employees knew and reported to Penn
State administrators he was in dangerous psychological crisis as a result of hazing immediately
prior to his suicide, and that they negligently or recklessly failed to take any action to protect hi
or advise the family of this emergency so that the family could saveMarquise’s life.
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 8/41
6
6. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Survival Act, 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 8302, and Pennsylvania’s Wrongful Death Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8301, to recover damages for the
devastating injuries and death needlessly caused by the tortious misconduct of each of the
Defendants as further alleged below.
Parties
7. Plaintiff, Richard A. Braham,is Marquise’s natural father and a resident of New
York.
8. The Surrogate’s Court of New York, Queens County , appointed Plaintiff as the
sole administrator of Marquise’s Estate by decree issued on September 9, 2014 (File No. 2014-3146).
9. Plaintiff filed with the Office of the Register of Wills of Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania an exemplified copy of the decree and an affidavit as specified by 20 Pa.C.S.
§ 4101, on September 1, 2015 (File No. F3494-2015), thereby enabling him to serve as persona
representative in proceedings before this Court.
10. As personal representative, Plaintiff has the right to bring survival claims on
behalf of the Estate pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Survival Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8302, and wrongful
death claims on behalf of the beneficiaries of the Estate pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Wrongful
Death Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8301.
11. The statutory beneficiaries under the Wrongful Death Act are Plaintiff and
Marquise’s natural mother, Marie-Yves Braham, both of whom reside at 141-45 250th Street,
Rosedale, New York 11422.
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 9/41
7
12. Defendant Penn State is a non-profit educational corporation which is
incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania. Penn State maintains its headquarters at 201 Old
Main, University Park, PA 16802.
13. Defendant Penn State regularly conducts business in Philadelphia County.
14. Defendant Karly Bish’s legal residence is at 405 Toby Road, Kersey,
Pennsylvania 15846-1217. At all relevant times, Ms. Bish was an employee of Defendant Pen
State and acted as an agent of, and within the scope of her agency with, Defendant Penn State.
15. Defendant Maria A. Mosley’s legal residence is at 713 Mary Street, Houtzdale,
Pennsylvania, 16651-1138. At all relevant times, Ms. Mosley was an employee of DefendantPenn State and acted as an agent of, and within the scope of her agency with, Defendant Penn
State.
16. DefendantThe Grand Chapter of Phi Sigma Kappa (“Grand Chapter”) is a non -
profit corporation which is incorporated under the laws of Delaware. Grand Chapter maintains
its headquarters at 2925 East 96th Street, Indianapolis, IN 46240. Grand Chapter is the princip
of Defendant Iota Septaton Corporation of Phi Sigma Kappa Fraternity.
17. Defendant Grand Chapter recruits members, regularly conducts business, and has
established and operates numerous fraternity chapters, throughout Pennsylvania, including in
Philadelphia County (University of Pennsylvania).
18. Defendant Iota SeptatonCorporation of Phi Sigma Kappa Fraternity (“Iota
Septaton”) is a non-profit corporation which is incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania.
Iota Septaton maintains its headquarters at 129 E. 24th Avenue, Altoona, PA 16601. Iota
Septaton is an agent of Grand Chapter.
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 10/41
8
19. Defendant Eric Traister ’s legal residence is at 68 Oak Ridge Drive, Voorhees,
New Jersey 08043-1536. At all relevant times, Mr. Traister was president and a member of
Defendant Iota Septaton and acted as an agent of, and within the scope of his agency with,
Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton.
20. DefendantAndrew O’Connor’s legal residence is at 519 Bonsall Road, Ridley
Park, Pennsylvania 19078. At all relevant times, Mr . O’Connor was vice -president and a
member of Defendant Iota Septaton and acted as an agent of, and within the scope of his agency
with, Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton.
Jurisdiction and Venue21. This Court has original jurisdiction over this civil action pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 931.
22. This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendant Penn State pursuant
to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5301 because Defendant Penn State is incorporated under the laws of
Pennsylvania and carries on a continuous and systematic part of its general business within
Pennsylvania.
23. This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendants Bish and Mosley
pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5301 because they are domiciled in Pennsylvania, or, alternatively,
specific personal jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322 because they caused tortious injury
by acts or omissions in Pennsylvania.
24. This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendant Grand Chapter
pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5301 because it carries on a continuous and systematic part of its
general business within Pennsylvania, or, alternatively, specific personal jurisdiction pursuant t
42 Pa.C.S. § 5322 because it caused tortious injury by acts or omissions in Pennsylvania.
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 11/41
9
25. This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendant Iota Septaton
pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5301 because it is incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania and
carries on a continuous and systematic part of its general business within Pennsylvania.
26. This Court has general personal jurisdiction over DefendantO’Connor pursuant to
42 Pa.C.S. § 5301 because he is domiciled in Pennsylvania.
27. This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants Traister and
O’Connor pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322 because they caused tortious injury by acts or omission
in Pennsylvania.
28.
Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2179 because DefendantsGrand Chapter and Penn State regularly conduct business in Philadelphia County, and Defendan
Grand Chapter’s actions, inactions and negligence, as alleged herein, are governed by Grand
Council, and a member thereof — specifically, Ed Kovacs — resides and conducts business for
Grand Chapter and its Pennsylvania chapters, including Defendant Iota Septaton, in Philadelphi
County.
Marquise’s Background
29. Marquise was the oldest child of his parents and was deeply devoted to both his
immediate and extended family. He was a reverent Catholic and devoted to his faith throughou
his childhood and adult life.
30. Marquise attended and graduated from Kellenberg Memorial High School in
Uniondale, New York, where he excelled academically and consistently made the honor roll.
31. While in high school, Marquise participated in a Christian student youth group, a
program for mentoring elementary school students, and the varsity track and field team.
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 12/41
10
32. Marquise worked as a camp counselor and volunteered at the Winthrop
University Hospital and the Parker Jewish Geriatric Institute.
33. Marquise was awarded a partial academic scholarship to attend Penn State
Altoona beginning the fall semester of 2013.
34. DuringMarquise’s freshman year, he began studying bio-medical engineering but
sought to change his major to physical therapy so he could more directly help people. He also
joined the Residence Halls Association and became Secretary of that organization as he sought
become a Resident Assistant for the following academic year, consistent with his desire to be o
service to others.The Brutal Hazing of Marquise and Penn State ’s Knowledge Thereof
35. In September 2013,at the start of Marquise’s freshman year, he began the process
of joining, or pledging, Phi Sig through its local chapter at Penn State Altoona, Defendant Iota
Septaton.
36. The process of pledging, and subsequent membership activities, were authorized,
controlled, directed, organized, participated in, or planned by Defendants Grand Chapter, Iota
Septaton, Traister, andO’Connor.
37. As part of the pledging process, Marquise was subjected to violent hazing,
including but not limited to:
a. The “locked in ceremony,” which involved forced drinking of alcohol.
(Specifically, Marquise and other pledges were locked in an attic, then taken to
the basement where there were two kegs of beer and two large trash cans in the
middle of the room. The pledges were ordered to drink beer until they filled the
two trash cans with vomit. At least one officer of Defendant Iota Septaton was
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 13/41
11
present at all times to order them to drink. The pledges were then returned to the
attic, cycling back and forth for two days, with little rest or food.);
b. Choosing between snorting a line of cocaine or being sodomized, while
being videotaped;
c. Committing theft and trespass;
d. Killing, gutting, and skinning animals;
e. Forcing the pledges to fight one another, resulting in concussions and
hospitalization of one pledge;
f.
Extreme sleep deprivation;g. Forced consumption of alcohol, revolting combinations of food, bottles of
Listerine, and goldfish;
h. Forced calisthenics and physical exertion, including rolling a keg up a
steep hill and then drinking it;
i. Having guns pointed at their heads; and
j. Having hot wax dripped on their backs until they consumed a bottle of
liquor.
38. The hazing of Marquise and his fellow pledges began in early October 2013, and,
by the end of that month, Marquise was sharing details of what was happening to him with a
Resident Assistant in his dormitory, Defendant Bish, engaging her by text on October 31, 2013,
to bid on him in an auction to prevent him from being the pledge who raised the least amount o
money. Ms. Bish asked what would happen if he were the pledge who raised the least amount o
money, and Marquise replied,“I can’t tell you but it’s nothing good lol. I’ll tell you another time
when I’m not surrounded by brothers.”
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 14/41
12
39. On November 3, 2013, Marquise texted Ms. Bish:“I think we’re going to do the
milk challenge this upcoming week because we all messed up last week.I’m not sure if I’m
Ready for that haha.” Ms. Bish replied,“Your gonna throw up. Its better to just chug and get it
over with then gothe whole hour feeling yucky.”
40. Marquise went on to inform Ms. Bish, “I feel like I’ve done so much that it can’t
get anyworse but it always does lol.” Ms. Bish replied,“yes it will get worse. I’m sorry to say
hahaha but it will.” Marquise then stated:“When I first started to pledge I didn’t think I would
be doing the stuff that I’m doing right now. And how do u know it’s going to get worse?” Ms.
Bish replied,“I know sigma pi got worse. And yours is worse than theirs so I can only imaginehahaha.”
41. The next day, Marquise informed Ms. Bish he was forced to eat shaving cream
sprinkled with tobacco dip and a live goldfish and forced to chug vinegar followed by milk to
curdle in their stomachs. Marquise complained that his stomach feltlike it was “on fire,” and
Ms.Bish recommended he “ eat something to soak up all that shit” and “ [b]read will help.”
42. Marquise was forced to kill, gut, and skin a squirrel. He texted a photo of the
carcass to Ms. Bish, who replied,“Yummy!!!!” She asked whether the dissection was for a
class, and Marquise told her it was “for the frat.”
43. At one point, Marquise texted“I expected worse last night, but that’s bit what’s
worrying me. The president and the sentinel almost got into a fist fight over how we were bein
hazed. The pres thinks that we aren’t being punished enough and since he has the say, I think
we’re fucked.”
44. During hell week, when Marquise was required to be at the Chapter house at all
times unless in class, and a professed eighty-nine hours without sleep, Marquise texted Ms. Bis
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 15/41
13
“I’m try to stay awake haha.” Ms. Bish responded,“Hahahaha try harder!! Can you text while
you are there?” Marquise then replied,“I’ve been through stuff and ik [I know] for a fact it’s
only going to get worse for me. And yeah I can text pretty often at the house.Unless I’m
getting hazedof course.” Ms. Bish replied,“You poor thing . . . Your keeping a good spirit tho.
Keep your chin up boo!!”
45. Ms. Bish continued to condone the hazing of Marquise, even as he told her he wa
being required to fight. Marquise texted,“I hear the worst is pretty much over.. All ik [I know]
is that we fight tn [tonight].I’ll feel much be tter if I tell you everything.When I’m a brother.
I’ll try to make it.” Ms. Bish replied,“I don’t even know w hat to say. I’m so sorry boo. Youmake me so proud of how strong you are. . .Keep chugging along boo.” Marquise later texted
Ms. Bish he thought he had sustained a concussion, to the point of fearing he would fall into a
coma were he to fall asleep, and he was taking another pledge to the hospital. Ms. Bish replied
“Stay strong little buddy. You are almost done and you’v e been so strong. Your kicking ass! =)
hope the tea helped.”
46. When Marquise was required to consume a bottle of Yukon Jack whiskey, he
asked Ms. Bish about it and she replied,“you’ll be okay. You’ll just puke a lot. And it’ll burn.”
Later, Marquise texted:“Just finished my bottle, first one to finish o Too.I’ll see yo u tomorrow
if I’m lace.” Then he texted “Alive.” Ms. Bish replied,:“Haha your cute. Goodnight =).”
47. As part of his class to become an RA, Marquise submitted to Defendant Mosley a
journal entry in which Marquise admitted that abusive alcohol consumption was negatively
affecting his health, stating“I simply drink more than any human being should and I can see it
taking its toll on me.” Ms. Mosley noted on his journal, “How will you balance this w/ the RA
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 16/41
14
position? How will you role model to your students?” Defendant Bish knew such alcohol
consumption was directly related to, and required by, the hazing Marquise was enduring.
Marquise’s Psychological Crisis
48. The next semester, having been initiated and now a member of Phi Sig, Marquise
was elected to the executive board position of secretary of Defendant Iota Septaton, which
required him to be present for the hazing of the next class of pledges. The hazing of the new
pledge class began with the“locked in ceremony,” which took place on or about February 24-26,
2014.
49.
Marquise’s continued membership in Phi Sig was conditioned upon his participation in this hazing. He struggled deeply with having to witness and participate in the
hazing of others.
50. Within days of the lock-in ceremony, Marquise texted Ms. Bish on March 4,
2014,“I’ve just been going through some stuff recently and it’s affecting my schoolwork.” Ms.
Bish texted later, “I’m just worried about you baby Quise . . . That’s all.”
51. On March 5, 2014, Marquise texted a friend from home,“I’m just h anging in here
haha. Hazing season just started soI’m kinda glad to go back home. Some of this shit is just
hard to watch when you’re a brother.”
52. On March 6, 2014, Marquise texted Ms. Bish,“I just never thought I would get to
the point where I needed counseling. That just isn’t me uk [you know]. Sometimes I just feel
like I’m falling apart . . .” Ms. Bish responded,“You just have a lot more serious things going
on than I do right now . . . I am worried about you.I didn’t know it was this bad. You almost
cried a few times =(.” Marquise then replied,“Looks like we’re in this together. I just really
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 17/41
15
hate showing emotions.I don’t even remember the last time I c ame close to crying like that. I
can’t stand talking about myself or my past uk [you know] it hurts.”
53. The dialogue continued with Ms. Bish stating,“I know it does Quise. But this
isn’t something you can bottle up . . .” Marquise replied,“Idk [I don’t know] Kar. I’ll see.” Ms.
Bish replied,“No I’m not suggesting this. I’m telling you. I’m worried as fuck about you . . .”
Marquise agreed to go to counseling upon return from spring break and suggested he was not
really that bad, to which Ms. Bish texted,“Lie to yourself all you want.”
54. Upon information and belief, on March 7, 2014, Defendants Bish and Mosley
reported to their supervisor that they believed Marquise was in a state of dangerous psychological crisis. Upon information and belief, they or their supervisor forwarded this
information to Penn State’s Dean of Student A ctivities but no action was taken to intervene, get
Marquise immediate help, or inform Marquise’s parents of his psychological crisis, despite
Marquise having signed a waiver allowing Penn State to communicate directly with his parents
regarding his academic and health issues. Moreover, Penn State’s health policy provides:
It is the policy of the University to render emergency assistance to students whoare seriously injured, suffer serious illness, or experience other personalemergencies while attending the University, and to notify and assist the familiesof students who have died, are seriously ill or injured, are missing or experienceother personal emergency situations.
Under such policy, Penn State assures parents that it will inform them about a student emergenc
with or without the student’s actual consent. The purpose of such policy and regulation is to
protect a particular class of students, of which Marquise was a member.
55. Marquise left Penn State for spring break on March 7, 2014. Once home,
Marquise wept when telling his aunt he needed toconfess his fraternity “sins.”
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 18/41
16
56. The hazing endured by Marquise, and then the hazing of others which he was
required to witness as a condition of being a member of Phi Sig, debased Marquise’s strong
Catholic principles and desire to help others so severely, Marquise confessed to his priest, “I
have sinned,” and told him he had been “marked” by the fraternity .
57. On March 14, 2014, the day before Marquise was to return to Penn State Altoona
and rejoin the fraternity hazing, Marquise jumped to his death from the roof of the Long Island
Marriott Hotel in Uniondale, New York, which is an eleven-story building.
58. Following Marquise’s dea th, Penn State investigated allegations of hazing
involving members and pledges of Iota Septaton during the 2013-2014 academic year, and, based on its findings, revoked its recognition Defendants Grand Council and Iota Septaton for a
period of six years. Upon information and belief, Penn State learned that its personnel had
observed and warnedsenior administrator’s at Penn State about Marquise’s psychological crises
as a result of the hazing shortly before his death, but Penn State kept this information secret fro
the family, leaving them in the dark and exacerbating their suffering ever since his death.
Pennsylvania’s Anti -Hazing Law
59. Pennsylvania’s anti-hazing law, 24 P.S. §§ 5351-5354, criminalizes hazing.
60. The anti-hazing law defines hazing as:
[a]ny action or situation which recklessly or intentionally endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student ... for the purpose of initiation or admissioninto or affiliation with, or as a condition for continued membership in, anyorganization operating under the sanction of or recognized as an organization byan institution of higher education.
61. The anti-hazing law states that hazing includes, but is not limited to:
any brutality of a physical nature, such as whipping, beating, branding, forcedcalisthenics, exposure to the elements, forced consumption of any food, liquor,drug or other substance, or any other forced physical activity which couldadversely affect the physical health and safety of the individual.
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 19/41
17
and
any activity which would subject the individual to extreme mental stress, such assleep deprivation, forced exclusion from social contact, forced conduct which
could result in extreme embarrassment, or any other forced activity which couldadversely affect the mental health or dignity of the individual, or any willfuldestruction or removal of public or private property.
62. The anti-hazing law states that any activity constituting hazing“upon which the
initiation or admission into or affiliation with or continued membership in an organization is
directly or indirectly conditioned shall be presumed to be ‘forced’ activity, the willingness of an
individual to participate in such activity notwithstanding.”
63. The anti-hazing law requires institutions of higher education, such as Penn State,
to adopt and enforce written policies “prohibiting students or other persons associated with any
organization operating under the sanction of or recognized as an organization by the institution
from engaging in any activity which can be described as hazing.” Upon information and belief,
Defendants Bish and Mosley were mandated to report suspected hazing to Penn State
administrators, who, along with Defendants Bish and Mosley, were mandated to take reasonabl
action to prevent hazing and protect students from being hazed and the effects thereof.
Penn State ’s Deceptive Statements
64. Penn State publicly reports on its website and documentary material that it has
one of the largest Greek communities in North America. Penn State publicly states in such
materials that it prohibits hazing in accordance with express requirements of Pennsylvania law.
65. Penn State states as fact only positive, promotional information to students and
families about Greek organizations, presumably for the purpose of convincing students to join
these organizations and become committed, valuable alumni.
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 20/41
18
66. Penn State’s documentary material labels the actual and dangerous risks facing
students pledging fraternities as constituting “myths,” expressly stating to parents and students:
For many parents, the fraternity and sorority community reminds them of images
of the movie Animal House. There are many myths about the fraternity andsorority community, but the reality is that men and women in fraternities andsororities are committed to their academics, volunteer their time in thecommunity, develop and strengthen their leadership skills, and form a campusnetwork with other fraternity and sorority members.
67. Statistics, insurance claims analyses, studies and reports, and widely known
incidents of catastrophic injury and death have for decades demonstrated the foreseeable risk of
dangerous injury and death from hazing. It is widely reported and well known among
universities and Greek organizations that at least one student has died in fraternity pledge
activitiesevery year since 1970. Upon information and belief, Penn State has had numerous
incidents of dangerous hazing and misuse of alcohol in fraternities on its campus, and has chose
to exclude this truthful information from its documentary materials.
68. In the late 1980s, the Fraternity Information and ProgrammingGroup (“FIPG”), a
different consortium of Greek organizations organized to coordinate their risk management
strategies and assist each other in the purchase of insurance, widely published that “fraternities
and sororities were ranked by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners as the sixth
worst risk for insurance companies – just behind hazardous waste disposal companies and
asbestos contractors.”
69. In 1997, the National Interfraternity Council (“NIC”), then comprising 66 Greek
national organizations with 5500 chapters on 800 campuses throughout the United States and
Canada, analyzed certain risks associated with Greek organizations and housing and concluded
that improper fraternity oversight of alcohol was “frighteningly pervasive.” The NIC passed a
Resolution encouraging “its member fraternities to pursue alcohol -free chapter facilities.”
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 21/41
19
70. Penn State had, at all times relevant hereto, access to and specialized knowledge
of information, research, campus judiciary proceedings, and other credible information
confirming a staggering number of serious risk management violations, injuries and deaths from
Greek activities, substantial flaws in the self-management system thereof, and the foreseeable
risk of further injury and death should Greek activities, traditions, and risk management
strategies on its campus continue without meaningful change. Upon information and belief,
Penn State also had specific knowledge of serious past misconduct, risk management violations
and disciplinary proceedings involving Iota Septaton and its members, but did not disclose such
truthful information to the public, including to Marquise and his family.71. Despite such knowledge, Penn State advised students and parents that alleged
misconduct and related risks involving Greek organizations were myths. Despite such
knowledge, Penn State chose not to timely and accurately report any information about the
incidents of hazing, risk management violations and other fraternity misconduct.
72. Penn State’s statements about fraternities and the services they and the university
provide regarding hazing, alcohol abuse, risks, and the safety of students seeking to join them a
unfair and deceptive, as those phrases are defined in the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices an
Consumer Protection Law. Penn State’s fail s to disclose any, let alone accurate, information
about the serious risks students face when joining Greek organizations from hazing, alcohol
abuse and other prevalent, dangerous misconduct.
COUNT ISurvival Claim for NegligenceAgainst Defendant Penn State
73. The allegations in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 22/41
20
74. This claim is brought by Plaintiff in his capacity as personal representative of the
Estate of Marquise A. Braham against Defendant Penn State pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Survival
Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8302, to recover all damages legally appropriate thereunder.
75. Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate all damages suffered by said Estate by
reason of the death of Marquis A. Braham, as well as for the physical and mental pain and
suffering that Marquis A. Braham underwent prior to his death.
76. Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate the past and future loss of earnings and
earning capacity sustained as a result of the death of Marquis A. Braham.
77.
Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton operated under the sanction of andwere recognized as organizations by Defendant Penn State.
78. Defendant Penn State retained significant authority and control over Defendants
Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton, up to and including but not limited to the ability to suspend o
to prohibit all of their operations and activities at Penn State Altoona.
79. Defendant Penn State knew or should have known that members of Defendant
Iota Septaton would engage and did engage in hazing and that hazing intentionally and reckless
inflicts emotional distress on all participants in hazing, including but not limited to persons
specifically targeted by hazing and persons required to otherwise participate in hazing.
80. Defendant Penn State owed statutory and common law duties, including but not
limited to assumed duties, to prevent members of Defendant Iota Septaton from engaging in
hazing and to protect pledges and members of Defendant Iota Septaton from hazing.
81. Defendant Penn State owed a statutory duty under Pennsylvania’s anti -hazing
law, 24 P.S. §§ 5351-5354, to prevent members of Defendant Iota Septaton from engaging in
hazing and to protect pledges and members of Defendant Iota Septaton from hazing.
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 23/41
21
82. The purpose of the anti-hazing law is to protect students from hazing.
83. At all relevant times, Marquise was within the class of persons intended to be
protected by the anti-hazing law.
84. Defendant Penn State breached its statutory and common law duties by, among
other things:
a. Failing to accurately state and warn students and families of the dangers of
hazing;
b. Failing to properly intervene, stop the hazing of Marquise, and discipline
members of Defendant Iota Septaton;c. Failing to properly implement or enforce laws, rules, and policies against
hazing;
d. Failing to properly supervise Defendant Iota Septaton and its members;
e. Relying on untrained agents to manage and supervise Defendant Iota
Septaton, its activities, and the enforcement of laws, rules, and policies against hazing;
f. Failing to properly train its staff to recognize the dangers of hazing and
take appropriate action to protect students; and
g. Relying on untrained or unreliable agents to monitor campus life.
85. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions of Defendant
Penn State, Marquise was subjected to intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress
resulting in extreme emotional distress and, ultimately, death by suicide.
86. Defendant Penn State is jointly and severally liable for Marquise’s injuries and
death because it and/or its agents acting within the scope of their authority:
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 24/41
22
a. Committed tortious acts or omissions in concert with other Defendants or
pursuant to a common design;
b. Knew that other Defendants’ conduct constituted a breach of duty and
gave substantial assistance or encouragement to the others so to conduct themselves; or
c. Gave substantial assistance to other Defendants in accomplishing a
tortious result and their own conduct, separately considered, constituted a breach of duty
to Marquise.
87. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Penn State, jointly
and severally, as follows: (1) compensatory damages in excess of $50,000; (2) punitive damagin the maximum amount allowable by law and proven at trial; (3) all costs associated with this
action; and (4) any other and further relief that is just and appropriate, including but not limited
to delay damages pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 238.
COUNT IISurvival Claim for NegligenceAgainst Defendant Penn State
88. The allegations in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein
89. This claim is brought by Plaintiff in his capacity as personal representative of the
Estate of Marquise A. Braham against Defendant Penn State pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Survival
Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8302, to recover all damages legally appropriate thereunder.
90. Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate all damages suffered by said Estate by
reason of the death of Marquise A. Braham, as well as for the physical and mental pain and
suffering that Marquise A. Braham underwent prior to his death.
91. Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate the past and future loss of earnings and
earning capacity sustained as a result of the death of Marquise A. Braham.
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 25/41
23
92. Defendant Penn State knew or should have known that Marquise was in a state of
emotional crisis and needed prompt medical attention to protect his emotional health and
physical safety.
93. At all relevant times, Defendant Penn State was authorized to intervene by
directly providing medical treatment to Marquise, advising Marquise’s parents about his hazing
and psychological crisis, or bywarning Marquise’s parents of his need for attention and care.
94. Defendant Penn State owed common law duties, including but not limited to
assumed duties, to intervene to protect Marquise’s health and safety.
95.
Defendant Penn State breached its duties by, among other things:a. Failing to obtain prompt medical attention for Marquise; and
b. Failing totell Marquise’s parents about the hazing, his psychological
crisis, and warn them of his need for prompt attention and care.
96. Had Marquise’s parents been told about the hazing andwarned of Marquise’s
psychological crisis, they would have promptly obtained the medical attention that Marquise
desperately needed.
97. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions of Defendant
Penn State, Marquise left campus in dangerous psychological distress and committed suicide.
Marquise’s damages also include but are not limited to conscious pain and suffering, lost
earnings, lost retirement and social security income, and medical expenses.
98. DefendantPenn State is jointly and severally liable for Marquise’s injuries and
death because it and/or its agents acting within the scope of their authority:
a. Committed tortious acts or omissions in concert with other Defendants or
pursuant to a common design;
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 26/41
24
b. Knewthat other Defendants’ conduct constituted a breach of duty and
gave substantial assistance or encouragement to the others so to conduct themselves; or
c. Gave substantial assistance to other Defendants in accomplishing a
tortious result and their own conduct, separately considered, constituted a breach of duty
to Marquise.
99. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Penn State, jointly
and severally, as follows: (1) compensatory damages in excess of $50,000; (2) punitive damag
in the maximum amount allowable by law and proven at trial; (3) all costs associated with this
action; and (4) any other and further relief that is just and appropriate, including but not limitedto delay damages pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 238.
COUNT IIISurvival Claim for Violation of
the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection LawAgainst Defendant Penn State
100. The allegations in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein
101. This claim is brought by Plaintiff in his capacity as personal representative of the
Estate of Marquise A. Braham against Defendant Penn State pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Survival
Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8302, to recover all damages legally appropriate thereunder.
102. Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate all damages suffered by said Estate by
reason of the death of Marquise A. Braham, as well as for the physical and mental pain and
suffering that Marquise A. Braham underwent prior to his death.
103. Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate the past and future loss of earnings and
earning capacity sustained as a result of the death of Marquise A. Braham.
104. As alleged above, Defendant Penn State made deceptive statements regarding
Greek organizations, Greek communities, and hazing.
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 27/41
25
105. Marquise was aware of andrelied on Defendant Penn State’s deceptive statements
in choosing to pledge and become a member of Phi Sig.
106. Had Defendant Penn State not made deceptive statements, either Marquise would
have chosen on his own initiative not to pledge or his parents would have affirmatively
prevented Marquise from pledging.
107. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Penn State’s deceptive conduct ,
Marquise was subjected to vicious hazing, suffered extreme psychological distress, and
committed suicide.Marquise’s damages also include but are not limited to conscious pain and
suffering, lost earnings, lost retirement and social security income, and medical expenses.WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Penn State, jointly and
severally, as follows: (1) compensatory damages in excess of $50,000; (2) three times the
amount of actual damages, pursuant to 73 P.S. § 201-9.2; (3) costs and reasonable attorneys’
fees, pursuant to 73 P.S. § 201-9.2; (4) equitable relief compelling Penn State to cease engaging
in unfair and deceptive acts or practices; and (5) any other and further relief that is just and
appropriate, including but not limited to delay damages pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 238.
COUNT IVSurvival Claim for Negligence
Against Defendants Bish and Mosley
108. The allegations in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein
109. This claim is brought by Plaintiff in his capacity as personal representative of the
Estate of Marquise A. Braham against Defendants Bish and Mosley pursuant to Pennsylvania’s
Survival Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8302, to recover all damages legally appropriate thereunder.
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 28/41
26
110. Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate all damages suffered by said Estate by
reason of the death of Marquise A. Braham, as well as for the physical and mental pain and
suffering that Marquise A. Braham underwent prior to his death.
111. Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate the past and future loss of earnings and
earning capacity sustained as a result of the death of Marquise A. Braham.
112. Defendants Bish and Mosley knew or should have known that members of
Defendant Iota Septaton subjected Marquise to hazing and forced him to watch hazing of others
and that such conduct intentionally and recklessly inflicted emotional distress on Marquise.
113.
Defendants Bish and Mosley knew or should have known that Marquise was in astate of emotional crisis and needed prompt medical attention to protect his emotional health an
physical safety.
114. Defendants Bish and Mosley owed common law duties, including but not limited
to assumed duties, to intervene to protect Marquise from hazing and to protect his emotional
health and physical safety.
115. Defendants Bish and Mosley breached their duties by, among other things:
a. Encouraging Marquise to continue with pledging and membership in
Defendant Iota Septaton notwithstanding the hazing and his state of emotional crisis;
b. Failing to timely report the hazing to supervisors or other persons who
could take action to stop it; and
c. Failing tofollow through on their reports of Marquise’s psychological
crisis to ensure he obtained the intervention and care he required and that they were
obligated to provide under the circumstances.
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 29/41
27
116. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions of Defendant
Bish and Mosley, Marquise was subjected to hazing resulting in severe and dangerous
psychological distress and, ultimately, his death by suicide.Marquise’s damages also include
but are not limited to conscious pain and suffering, lost earnings, lost retirement and social
security income, and medical expenses.
117. Defendants Bish and Mosley are jointly and severally liable for Marquise’s
injuries and death because they:
a. Committed tortious acts or omissions in concert with other Defendants or
pursuant to a common design; b. Knew that other Defendants’ conduct constituted a breach of duty and
gave substantial assistance or encouragement to the others so to conduct themselves; or
c. Gave substantial assistance to other Defendants in accomplishing a
tortious result and their own conduct, separately considered, constituted a breach of duty
to Marquise.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants Bish and Mosley, jointly
and severally, as follows: (1) compensatory damages in excess of $50,000; (2) punitive damag
in the maximum amount allowable by law and proven at trial; (3) all costs associated with this
action; and (4) any other and further relief that is just and appropriate, including but not limited
to delay damages pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 238.
COUNT VSurvival Claim for Negligence
Against Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton
118. The allegations in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 30/41
28
119. This claim is brought by Plaintiff in his capacity as personal representative of the
Estate of Marquise A. Braham against Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton pursuant to
Pennsylvania’s Survival Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8302, to recover all damages legally appropriate
thereunder.
120. Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate all damages suffered by said Estate by
reason of the death of Marquise A. Braham, as well as for the physical and mental pain and
suffering that Marquise A. Braham underwent prior to his death.
121. Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate the past and future loss of earnings and
earning capacity sustained as a result of the death of Marquise A. Braham.122. Defendant Iota Septaton is chartered by and an agent of Defendant Grand Chapter
which retains significant control over Defendant Iota Septaton though its Constitution, bylaws,
rules, policies, procedures, and monetary support. Defendant Grand Chapter also controls and
manages Defendant Iota Septaton through the use of consultants, staff, and alumni advisors.
123. Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton knew or should have known that
members of Defendant Iota Septaton would engage and did engage in hazing and that hazing
intentionally and recklessly inflicts emotional distress on all participants in hazing, including bu
not limited to persons specifically targeted by hazing and persons required to watch hazing.
124. Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton owed statutory and common law
duties, including assumed duties, to prevent members of Defendant Iota Septaton from engagin
in hazing and to protect pledges and members of Defendant Iota Septaton from hazing.
125. Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton breached their duties by, among
other things:
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 31/41
29
a. Failing to warn pledges and members of Defendant Iota Septaton of the
dangers of hazing;
b. Failing to properly discipline members of Defendant Iota Septaton;
c. Failing to properly implement or enforce risk management guidelines with
respect to Defendant Iota Septaton;
d. Failing to properly manage and supervise Defendant Iota Septaton;
e. Failing to properly train members of Defendant Iota Septaton; and/or
f. Relying on untrained members to manage Defendant Iota Septaton, its
activities, and the enforcement of laws, rules, and policies against hazing.126. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions of Defendant
Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton, Marquise was subjected to intentional and reckless infliction
emotional distress resulting in extreme emotional distress and, ultimately, death by suicide.
Marquise’s damages a lso include but are not limited to conscious pain and suffering, lost
earnings, lost retirement and social security income, and medical expenses.
127. Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton are jointly and severally liable for
Marquise’s injuries and death because they each:
a. Committed tortious acts or omissions in concert with other Defendants or
pursuant to a common design;
b. Knew that other Defendants’ conduct constituted a breach of duty and
gave substantial assistance or encouragement to the others so to conduct themselves; or
c. Gave substantial assistance to other Defendants in accomplishing a
tortious result and their own conduct, separately considered, constituted a breach of duty
to Marquise.
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 32/41
30
128. Additionally, Defendant Grand Chapter is vicariously liable for any tortious
injury caused by Defendant Iota Septaton because at all relevant times:
a. Defendant Iota Septaton acted within the scope of its agency;
b. Defendant Iota Septaton acted with the actual or constructive knowledge
or acquiescence of Defendant Grand Chapter; or
c. Defendant Iota Septaton engaged in conduct that is of the type which
vicarious liability attaches even where an agent acts outside the scope of his agency.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota
Septaton, jointly and severally, as follows: (1) compensatory damages in excess of $50,000;(2) punitive damages in the maximum amount allowable by law and proven at trial; (3) all costs
associated with this action; and (4) any other and further relief that is just and appropriate,
including but not limited to delay damages pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 238.
COUNT VISurvival Claim for Negligence
Against Defendants Traister and O’Connor
129. The allegations in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein
130. This claim is brought by Plaintiff in his capacity as personal representative of the
Estate of Marquise A. Braham against Defendants Traister andO’Connor pursuant to
Pennsylvania’s Survival Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8302 , to recover all damages legally appropriate
thereunder.
131. Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate all damages suffered by said Estate by
reason of the death of Marquise A. Braham, as well as for the physical and mental pain and
suffering that Marquise A. Braham underwent prior to his death.
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 33/41
31
132. Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate the past and future loss of earnings and
earning capacity sustained as a result of the death of Marquise A. Braham.
133. Defendants Traister andO’Connor knew or should have known that members of
Defendant Iota Septaton would engage and did engage in hazing and that hazing intentionally
and recklessly inflicts emotional distress on all participants in hazing, including but not limited
to persons specifically targeted by hazing and persons required to watch hazing.
134. Defendants Traister andO’Connor at all relevant times had sufficient authority
and control over pledges and members of Defendant Iota Septaton to prevent and protect pledge
and members of Defendant Iota Septaton from hazing.135. Defendants Traister andO’Connor owed statutory and common law duties,
including assumed duties, to prevent members of Defendant Iota Septaton from engaging in
hazing and to protect pledges and members of Defendant Iota Septaton from hazing.
136. Defendants Traister andO’Connor breached their duties by, among other things:
a. Failing to warn pledges and members of Defendant Iota Septaton of the
dangers of hazing;
b. Failing to properly discipline members of Defendant Iota Septaton;
c. Failing to properly implement or enforce risk management guidelines with
respect to Defendant Iota Septaton;
d. Failing to properly manage Defendant Iota Septaton;
e. Failing to properly train members of Defendant Iota Septaton; and
f. Relying on untrained members to manage Defendant Iota Septaton, its
activities, and the enforcement of laws, rules, and policies against hazing.
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 34/41
32
137. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions of Defendant
Traister andO’Connor , Marquise was subjected to intentional and reckless infliction of
emotional distress resulting in extreme emotional distress and, ultimately, death by suicide.
Marquise’s damages also include but are not limited to conscious pain and suffering, lost
earnings, lost retirement and social security income, and medical expenses.
138. Defendants Traister andO’Connor are jointly and severally liable for Marquise’s
injuries and death because they:
a. Committed tortious acts or omissions in concert with other Defendants or
pursuant to a common design; b. Knew that other Defendants’ conduct constituted a breach of duty and
gave substantial assistance or encouragement to the others so to conduct themselves; or
c. Gave substantial assistance to other Defendants in accomplishing a
tortious result and their own conduct, separately considered, constituted a breach of duty
to Marquise.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants Traister andO’Connor ,
jointly and severally, as follows: (1) compensatory damages in excess of $50,000; (2) punitive
damages in the maximum amount allowable by law and proven at trial; (3) all costs associated
with this action; and (4) any other and further relief that is just and appropriate, including but no
limited to delay damages pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 238.
COUNT VIISurvival Claim for Vicarious Liability
Against Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton
139. The allegations in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 35/41
33
140. This claim is brought by Plaintiff in his capacity as personal representative of the
Estate of Marquise A. Braham against Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton pursuant to
Pennsylvania’s Survival Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8302, to recover all damages legally appropriate
thereunder.
141. Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate all damages suffered by said Estate by
reason of the death of Marquise A. Braham, as well as for the physical and mental pain and
suffering that Marquise A. Braham underwent prior to his death.
142. Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate the past and future loss of earnings and
earning capacity sustained as a result of the death of Marquise A. Braham.143. At all relevant times, DefendantsTraister and O’Connor were agents of
Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton.
144. DefendantsTraister and O’Connor caused tortious injury to Marquise, as alleged
in Counts VI of this Complaint.
145. Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton are vicariously liable for such
tortious injury because, at all relevant times:
a. DefendantsTraister and O’Connor acted within the scope of their agency;
b. DefendantsTraister and O’Connor acted with the actual or constructive
knowledge or acquiescence of Defendants Grand Chapter or Iota Septaton; or
c. DefendantsTraister and O’Connor engaged in conduct that is of the type
which vicarious liability attaches even where an agent acts outside the scope of his
agency.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota
Septaton, jointly and severally, as follows: (1) compensatory damages in excess of $50,000; (2
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 36/41
34
punitive damages in the maximum amount allowable by law and proven at trial; (3) all costs
associated with this action; and (4) any other and further relief that is just and appropriate,
including but not limited to delay damages pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 238.
COUNT VIIISurvival Claim for Vicarious Liability
Against Defendant Penn State
146. The allegations in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein
147. This claim is brought by Plaintiff in his capacity as personal representative of the
Estate of Marquise A. Braham against Defendant Penn State pursuant toPennsylvania’s Survival
Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8302, to recover all damages legally appropriate thereunder.148. Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate all damages suffered by said Estate by
reason of the death of Marquise A. Braham, as well as for the physical and mental pain and
suffering that Marquise A. Braham underwent prior to his death.
149. Plaintiff claims on behalf of the Estate the past and future loss of earnings and
earning capacity sustained as a result of the death of Marquise A. Braham.
150. At all relevant times, Defendants Bish and Mosley were agents of Defendant Penn
State.
151. Defendants Bish and Mosley caused tortious injury to Marquise, as alleged in
Count IV of this Complaint.
152. Defendant Penn State is vicariously liable for such tortious injury because, at all
relevant times:
a. Defendants Bish and Mosley acted within the scope of their agency;
b. Defendants Bish and Mosley acted with the actual or constructive
knowledge or acquiescence of Defendant Penn State; or
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 37/41
35
c. Defendants Bish and Mosley engaged in conduct that is of the type which
vicarious liability attaches even where an agent acts outside the scope of her agency.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Penn State, jointly and
severally, as follows: (1) compensatory damages in excess of $50,000; (2) punitive damages in
the maximum amount allowable by law and proven at trial; (3) all costs associated with this
action; and (4) any other and further relief that is just and appropriate, including but not limited
to delay damages pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 238.
COUNT IXWrongful Death Claim Against All Defendants
153. The allegations in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein
154. This claim is brought by Plaintiff in his capacity as personal representative of the
Estate of Marquise A. Braham against all Defendants pursuant toPennsylvania’s Wrongful
Death Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8301, and in accordance with Rule 2202(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules o
Civil Procedure to recover all damages legally appropriate thereunder, together with prejudgme
interest from the date of this action, pursuant to Pennsylvania law.
155. Plaintiff brings this claim on behalfMarquise’s beneficiaries under the Wrongful
Death Act.
156. Marquise’s beneficiaries under the Wrongful Death Act are Plaintiff, who is
Marquise’s natural father, and Marie-Yves Braham, who isMarquise’s natural mother.
157. Marquise’s death was a direct and proximate result of the wrongful act or neglect
or unlawful violence or negligence of each of Defendants, as alleged above.
158. No action was brought, and no recovery was obtained, forMarquise’s injuries or
death prior to the initiation of this action.
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 38/41
36
159. This wrongful death claim andMarquise’s survival claims for injuries resulting in
death are consolidated together in this action so as to avoid a duplicative recovery.
160. The beneficiaries have incurred damages as a direct and proximate result of
Marquise’s death, including but not limited to damages for loss of support, loss of services,
medical expenses, funeral expenses, and expenses of administration necessitated by reason of
injuries causing death.
161. As a further result of the death of Marquise A. Braham, the said beneficiaries
have suffered the loss of services of Marquise A. Braham, loss of financial support and
contribution which Marquise A. Braham would have contributed in the future, and a loss ofsupport, companionship, comfort, guidance, solace, and society
162. Defendants are jointly and severally liable forMarquise’s injuries and death
because they each:
a. Committed tortious acts or omissions in concert with other Defendants or
pursuant to a common design;
b. Knew that otherDefendants’ conduct constituted a breach of duty and
gave substantial assistance or encouragement to the others so to conduct themselves; or
c. Gave substantial assistance to other Defendants in accomplishing a
tortious result and their own conduct, separately considered, constituted a breach of duty
to Marquise.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, as
follows: (1) compensatory damages in excess of $50,000; (2) all costs associated with this
action; and (3) any other and further relief that is just and appropriate, including but not limited
to delay damages pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 238.
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 39/41
37
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests a jury consisting of twelve members.
Dated: December 15, 2015 Respectfully submitted,
MARCIANO & MACAVOY, P.C.
By: Kevin R. MarcianoKevin R. Marciano, EsquirePatrick D. MacAvoy, EsquireID Nos. 65901/209005Attorneys for Plaintiff
16 W. Front StreetMedia, PA 19063(610) [email protected] [email protected]
THE FIERBERG NATIONALLAW GROUP, PLLCBY: DOUGLAS E. FIERBERG, ESQUIREBY: DOUGLAS C. MELCHER, ESQUIRE
Admitted Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for PlaintiffFifth Floor – Centurion Center2001 L Street, NWWashington, DC 20036(202) [email protected]@tfnlgroup.com
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 40/41
Case ID: 150804201
8/20/2019 Braham Complaint FILED
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braham-complaint-filed 41/41
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 15th day of December, 2015, I electronically filedPlaintiff’s
Complaint with the Prothonotary using the Philadelphia Courts Electronic Filing System which
will send notification of such filing to the below. Upon receipt of the notification, if the below
not a registered e-filer a hard copy will be served via first class mail, postage pre-paid upon the
below:
James A. Keller, EsquireAlexander R. Bilus, Esquire
Saul Ewing, LLPCentre Square West1500 Market Street, 38th FloorPhiladelphia, PA 19102-2186
Jennifer S. Coatsworth, EsquireMargolis Edelstein
The Curtis Center170 S. Independence Mall WestSuite 400EPhiladelphia, PA 19106
Michael C. Osborne, EsquireArcher NorrisOne Embarcadero CenterSuite 360San Francisco, CA 94111
James M. Horne, EsquireMcQuaide Blasko811 University DriveState College, PA 16801
Ryan O. Hemminger, EsquireLeech Tishman Fuscaldo & Lampl, LLC525 William Penn Place, 28th FloorPittsburgh, PA 15219
MARCIANO & MacAVOY, P.C.
/s/ Kevin R. MarcianoKEVIN R. MARCIANO, ESQUIRE
PATRICK D. MacAVOY, ESQUIREAttorneys for Plaintiff, Richard A. BrahamDate: December 15, 2015