Braham Complaint FILED

JURY OF TWELVE (12) IS DEMANDED
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IS REQUIRED
Filed and Attested by
PROTHONOTARY
15 DEC 2015 03:17 pm
J. OSTROWSKI

MARCIANO & MACAVOY, P.C.
BY: KEVIN R. MARCIANO, ESQUIRE
BY: PATRICK D. MACAVOY, ESQUIRE
ID NOS. 65901/209005
16 W. Front Street
Media, PA 19063
(610) 566-6500
[email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

THE FIERBERG NATIONAL LAW GROUP, PLLC
BY: DOUGLAS E. FIERBERG, ESQUIRE
BY: DOUGLAS C. MELCHER, ESQUIRE
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Fifth Floor – Centurion Center
2001 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 351-0510
[email protected]
[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________________
:
RICHARD A. BRAHAM, Administrator
:
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
of the ESTATE OF
:
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
MARQUISE A. BRAHAM
:
141-45 250th Street
:
Rosedale, NY 11422
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
August Term, 2015
:
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE
:
UNIVERSITY, a Non-Profit
:
Educational Corporation
:
No. 004201
4801 S. Broad Street, Suite 110
:
The Navy Yard
:
Philadelphia, PA 19112
:
and
:
1

Case ID: 150804201

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

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

2

Case ID: 150804201

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"

"AVISO"

"You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against
the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take
action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and
notice are served, by entering a written appearance
personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court
your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against
you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may
proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against
you by the court without further notice for any money
claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief
requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property
or other rights important to you.

"Le han demando a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere
defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las páginas
siguientes, usted tiene veinte (20) diás de plazo al partir de
la fecha de la demanda y la notificación. Hace falta asentar
una comparencia escrita o en persona o con un abogado y
entregar a la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus
objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea
avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomará medidas
y puede continuar la demanda en contra suya sin previo aviso
o notificación. Además, la corte puede decidir a favor del
demandante y requiere que usted cumpla con todas las
provisiones de esta demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o
sus propiedades u otros derechos importantes para usted.

"YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR
LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A
LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR
TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO
FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP."
THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH
INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY
OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT
A REDUCED FEE FOR NO FEE.

"LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN AGOGADO
INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI
NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL
SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR
TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE
ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR
DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA
LEGAL." ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PODER PROVEER
DE USTED LA INFORMACIÓN SOBRE LAS
AGENCIAS QUE PUEDEN OFRECER SERVICIOS
JURÍDICOS A LAS PERSONAS ELEGIBLES EN UN
HONORARIO
REDUCIDO
PARA
NINGÚN
HONORARIO.

Philadelphia Bar Association
Lawyer Referral
and Information Service
One Reading Center
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 238-6333
TTY (215) 451-6197

Asociacion de Licenciados
de Filadelfia
Servicio de Referencia e
Informacion Legal
One Reading Center
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 238-6333
TTY (215) 451-6197

3

Case ID: 150804201

JURY OF TWELVE (12) IS DEMANDED
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IS REQUIRED
MARCIANO & MACAVOY, P.C.
BY: KEVIN R. MARCIANO, ESQUIRE
BY: PATRICK D. MACAVOY, ESQUIRE
ID NOS. 65901/209005
16 W. Front Street
Media, PA 19063
(610) 566-6500
[email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

THE FIERBERG NATIONAL LAW GROUP, PLLC
BY: DOUGLAS E. FIERBERG, ESQUIRE
BY: DOUGLAS C. MELCHER, ESQUIRE
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Fifth Floor – Centurion Center
2001 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 351-0510
[email protected]
[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________________
:
RICHARD A. BRAHAM, Administrator
:
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
of the ESTATE OF
:
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
MARQUISE A. BRAHAM
:
141-45 250th Street
:
Rosedale, NY 11422
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
:
August Term, 2015
v.
:
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE
:
UNIVERSITY, a Non-Profit
:
Educational Corporation
:
No. 004201
4801 S. Broad Street, Suite 110
:
The Navy Yard
:
Philadelphia, PA 19112
:
and
:

2

Case ID: 150804201

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

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

3

Case ID: 150804201

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 protect
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 and hazed 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

4

Case ID: 150804201

hours, locked in a room with other pledges, alcohol, and a trashcan to catch their vomit; having a
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 policies 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 almost
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 him
or advise the family of this emergency so that the family could save Marquise’s life.

5

Case ID: 150804201

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

8.

The Surrogate’s Court of New York, Queens County, appointed Plaintiff as the

York.

sole administrator of Marquise’s Estate by decree issued on September 9, 2014 (File No. 20143146).
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 personal
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.

6

Case ID: 150804201

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 Penn
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 Defendant
Penn State and acted as an agent of, and within the scope of her agency with, Defendant Penn
State.
16.

Defendant The 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 principal
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 Septaton Corporation 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.

7

Case ID: 150804201

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.

Defendant Andrew 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 Venue
21.

This Court has original jurisdiction over this civil action pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.

22.

This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendant Penn State pursuant

§ 931.

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 to
42 Pa.C.S. § 5322 because it caused tortious injury by acts or omissions in Pennsylvania.

8

Case ID: 150804201

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 Defendant O’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 omissions
in Pennsylvania.
28.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2179 because Defendants

Grand Chapter and Penn State regularly conduct business in Philadelphia County, and Defendant
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 Philadelphia
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 throughout
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.

9

Case ID: 150804201

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.

During Marquise’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 to
become a Resident Assistant for the following academic year, consistent with his desire to be of
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, and O’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

10

Case ID: 150804201

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 of
money. Ms. Bish asked what would happen if he were the pledge who raised the least amount of
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.”

11

Case ID: 150804201

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 go the 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 any worse 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 imagine
hahaha.”
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 felt like 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 being
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. Bish,

12

Case ID: 150804201

“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 hazed of 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 was

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 better if I tell you everything. When I’m a brother.
I’ll try to make it.” Ms. Bish replied, “I don’t even know what to say. I’m so sorry boo. You
make 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’ve 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 you 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

13

Case ID: 150804201

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 hanging in here

haha. Hazing season just started so I’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

14

Case ID: 150804201

hate showing emotions. I don’t even remember the last time I came 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 Activities 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 who
are seriously injured, suffer serious illness, or experience other personal
emergencies while attending the University, and to notify and assist the families
of students who have died, are seriously ill or injured, are missing or experience
other personal emergency situations.
Under such policy, Penn State assures parents that it will inform them about a student emergency
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 to confess his fraternity “sins.”

15

Case ID: 150804201

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 death, 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 warned senior 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 from
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 admission
into or affiliation with, or as a condition for continued membership in, any
organization operating under the sanction of or recognized as an organization by
an 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, forced
calisthenics, exposure to the elements, forced consumption of any food, liquor,
drug or other substance, or any other forced physical activity which could
adversely affect the physical health and safety of the individual.
16

Case ID: 150804201

and
any activity which would subject the individual to extreme mental stress, such as
sleep deprivation, forced exclusion from social contact, forced conduct which
could result in extreme embarrassment, or any other forced activity which could
adversely affect the mental health or dignity of the individual, or any willful
destruction 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 reasonable
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.

17

Case ID: 150804201

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 and
sorority community, but the reality is that men and women in fraternities and
sororities are committed to their academics, volunteer their time in the
community, develop and strengthen their leadership skills, and form a campus
network 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
activities every 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 chosen
to exclude this truthful information from its documentary materials.
68.

In the late 1980s, the Fraternity Information and Programming Group (“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.”
18

Case ID: 150804201

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 are
unfair and deceptive, as those phrases are defined in the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law. Penn State’s fails 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 I
Survival Claim for Negligence
Against Defendant Penn State
73.

The allegations in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein.

19

Case ID: 150804201

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 and

were 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 or
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 recklessly
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.

20

Case ID: 150804201

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

b.

Failing to properly intervene, stop the hazing of Marquise, and discipline

hazing;

members of Defendant Iota Septaton;
c.

Failing to properly implement or enforce laws, rules, and policies against

d.

Failing to properly supervise Defendant Iota Septaton and its members;

e.

Relying on untrained agents to manage and supervise Defendant Iota

hazing;

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.
85.

Relying on untrained or unreliable agents to monitor campus life.

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:

21

Case ID: 150804201

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 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 II
Survival Claim for Negligence
Against 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.

22

Case ID: 150804201

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 by warning 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 to tell 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 and warned 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.

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:
a.

Committed tortious acts or omissions in concert with other Defendants or

pursuant to a common design;

23

Case ID: 150804201

Knew that other Defendants’ conduct constituted a breach of duty and

b.

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 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 III
Survival Claim for Violation of
the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
Against 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.
24

Case ID: 150804201

105.

Marquise was aware of and relied 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 IV
Survival 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.

25

Case ID: 150804201

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 a

state of emotional crisis and needed prompt medical attention to protect his emotional health and
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 to follow 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.

26

Case ID: 150804201

116.

As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions of Defendants

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;
Knew that other Defendants’ conduct constituted a breach of duty and

b.

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 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 V
Survival Claim for Negligence
Against Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton
118.

The allegations in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein.

27

Case ID: 150804201

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 but
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 engaging
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:

28

Case ID: 150804201

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 Defendants

Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton, 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.
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.

29

Case ID: 150804201

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 VI
Survival 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 and O’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.

30

Case ID: 150804201

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 and O’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 and O’Connor at all relevant times had sufficient authority

and control over pledges and members of Defendant Iota Septaton to prevent and protect pledges
and members of Defendant Iota Septaton from hazing.
135.

Defendants Traister and O’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 and O’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.

31

Case ID: 150804201

137.

As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions of Defendants

Traister and O’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 and O’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;
Knew that other Defendants’ conduct constituted a breach of duty and

b.

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 and O’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 not
limited to delay damages pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 238.

COUNT VII
Survival Claim for Vicarious Liability
Against Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton
139.

The allegations in the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein.

32

Case ID: 150804201

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, Defendants Traister and O’Connor were agents of

Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton.
144.

Defendants Traister 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.

Defendants Traister and O’Connor acted within the scope of their agency;

b.

Defendants Traister and O’Connor acted with the actual or constructive

knowledge or acquiescence of Defendants Grand Chapter or Iota Septaton; or
c.

Defendants Traister 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)

33

Case ID: 150804201

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 VIII
Survival 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 to Pennsylvania’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

151.

Defendants Bish and Mosley caused tortious injury to Marquise, as alleged in

State.

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

34

Case ID: 150804201

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 IX
Wrongful 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 to Pennsylvania’s Wrongful
Death Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8301, and in accordance with Rule 2202(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Civil Procedure to recover all damages legally appropriate thereunder, together with prejudgment
interest from the date of this action, pursuant to Pennsylvania law.
155.

Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf Marquise’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 is Marquise’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, for Marquise’s injuries or

death prior to the initiation of this action.

35

Case ID: 150804201

159.

This wrongful death claim and Marquise’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 of
support, companionship, comfort, guidance, solace, and society
162.

Defendants 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.
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.

36

Case ID: 150804201

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. Marciano
Kevin R. Marciano, Esquire
Patrick D. MacAvoy, Esquire
ID Nos. 65901/209005
Attorneys for Plaintiff
16 W. Front Street
Media, PA 19063
(610) 566-6500
[email protected]
[email protected]

THE FIERBERG NATIONAL
LAW GROUP, PLLC
BY: DOUGLAS E. FIERBERG, ESQUIRE
BY: DOUGLAS C. MELCHER, ESQUIRE
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Fifth Floor – Centurion Center
2001 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 351-0510
[email protected]
[email protected]

37

Case ID: 150804201

Case ID: 150804201

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 15th day of December, 2015, I electronically filed Plaintiff’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 is
not a registered e-filer a hard copy will be served via first class mail, postage pre-paid upon the
below:

James A. Keller, Esquire
Alexander R. Bilus, Esquire
Saul Ewing, LLP
Centre Square West
1500 Market Street, 38th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102-2186

Jennifer S. Coatsworth, Esquire
Margolis Edelstein
The Curtis Center
170 S. Independence Mall West
Suite 400E
Philadelphia, PA 19106

Michael C. Osborne, Esquire
Archer Norris
One Embarcadero Center
Suite 360
San Francisco, CA 94111

James M. Horne, Esquire
McQuaide Blasko
811 University Drive
State College, PA 16801

Ryan O. Hemminger, Esquire
Leech Tishman Fuscaldo & Lampl, LLC
525 William Penn Place, 28th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219

MARCIANO & MacAVOY, P.C.
/s/ Kevin R. Marciano
KEVIN R. MARCIANO, ESQUIRE
PATRICK D. MacAVOY, ESQUIRE
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Richard A. Braham
Date: December 15, 2015

39

Case ID: 150804201