Braham Complaint FILED

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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


Case ID: 150804201



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



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






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.


earning capacity sustained as a result of the death of Marquise A. Braham.

Case ID: 150804201



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.


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:



Case ID: 150804201



24

b. Knewthat other Defendants’ conduct constituted a breach of duty and




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










104. As alleged above, Defendant Penn State made deceptive statements regarding

Greek organizations, Greek communities, and hazing.

Case ID: 150804201



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



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



26






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



27


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:


pursuant to a common design; b. Knew that other Defendants’ conduct constituted a breach of duty and




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



COUNT VSurvival Claim for Negligence

Against Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton


Case ID: 150804201



28


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.





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



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


127. Defendants Grand Chapter and Iota Septaton are jointly and severally liable for

Marquise’s injuries and death because they each:



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




to Marquise.

Case ID: 150804201



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



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.




Case ID: 150804201



31



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


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



32


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


138. Defendants Traister andO’Connor are jointly and severally liable for Marquise’s

injuries and death because they:


pursuant to a common design; b. Knew that other Defendants’ conduct constituted a breach of duty and




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


Case ID: 150804201



33


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.





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



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



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





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



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



COUNT IXWrongful Death Claim Against All Defendants



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



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:



b. Knew that otherDefendants’ conduct constituted a breach of duty and




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



Case ID: 150804201



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



Case ID: 150804201



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

Braham Complaint FILED

Documents

Transcript of Braham Complaint FILED