155 F. Supp. 3d 619
W.D. Va.2015Background
- Plaintiff Anthony Marcantonio, a 2014 UVA freshman and competitive swimmer, alleges upperclassmen on the UVA swim team subjected him to a violent, prolonged hazing at an off-campus "Swim House," including blindfolding, forced ingestion of liquids, confinement in a bathroom with exits/ drains blocked, physical contact, degrading sexual and racial humiliation, and being forced to eat goldfish.
- Defendants are five former teammates (Dudzinski, Papendick, Rommel, Ingraham, Pearce) who moved to dismiss all counts for failure to state a claim.
- Complaint asserts ten Virginia-law counts against each defendant: assault, battery, false imprisonment, hazing (Va. Code § 18.2-56), tortious interference with contractual relations, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), punitive damages, common-law conspiracy, statutory conspiracy (Va. Code §§ 18.2-499 & -500), and negligence.
- Court applied Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standards (Twombly/Iqbal) and analyzed specificity problems from many allegations lumping acts against generic "defendants."
- Court denied dismissal of most personal-tort claims (assault, battery, false imprisonment, hazing, common-law conspiracy, punitive damages, negligence) as to most defendants but dismissed multiple claims against Papendick (who was specifically alleged only twice) and dismissed IIED and the statutory conspiracy and tortious-interference claims for legal insufficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of pleading under Twombly/Iqbal (generic allegations vs. specific acts) | Complaint's collective allegations and some named allegations are enough to survive 12(b)(6) | Generic group pleading fails to identify which defendant did what; claims against sparsely mentioned defendants should be dismissed | Court applied precedent: where specific factual allegations name defendants, claims survive; Papendick largely dismissed because allegations against him were only two discrete acts |
| Assault/Battery (intent/immediacy and consent) | Events at Swim House (threatening movements, slamming doors, buckets on head, forced ingestion, pouring liquids) support assault and nonconsensual touching -> battery | Defendants contend no assault (emails not immediate) and voluntary attendance meant consent | Assault and battery survive against most defendants (emails alone insufficient for assault; however physical acts at Swim House support both; consent insufficient given coercion allegations) |
| False imprisonment (restraint without legal excuse) | Plaintiff forced/confined in bathroom with exits/drains blocked and doors slammed; feared for safety -> restraint | Defendants argue no facts tying specific defendant to preventing exit or causing reasonable fear | Claim survives: complaint alleges confinement, blocked escape routes, and actions (door slamming) supporting reasonable apprehension of force |
| Hazing under Va. Code § 18.2-56 ("bodily injury" requirement) | Forcing ingestion leading to vomiting and other physical effects qualifies as bodily injury; acts occurred in initiation context | Defendants argue emotional harm not bodily injury and vomiting is mere reaction | Court holds "bodily injury" includes bodily hurt such as vomiting; hazing claim survives as complaint plausibly alleges bodily injury caused by defendants |
| Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (severity) | Ongoing humiliation, fear, disorientation, therapy (proffered at argument) amount to severe distress | Defendants: allegations do not show the legally required severe distress; IIED is disfavored in Virginia | IIED dismissed: alleged distress (fear, humiliation, vomiting, nightmares only proffered orally) insufficient as a matter of law to meet severe-distress element |
| Tortious interference with contractual relations & statutory conspiracy (business injury) | Plaintiff alleges loss of "swim contract"/ability to swim at UVA and related damage | Defendants: no clear contract/terms alleged; leaving school was plaintiff's choice; statute protects business/property, not personal interests; scholarship/athletics not a property right | Both claims dismissed: tortious-interference inadequately pleaded as to contract/existence, causation, damages; statutory conspiracy fails because statute guards business/property interests and the pleading lacked particularity |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim; mere labels and conclusions insufficient)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requires factual plausibility and courts need not accept legal conclusions)
- Koffman v. Garnett, 265 Va. 12 (2003) (elements of assault under Virginia law)
- English v. Virginia, 58 Va. App. 711 (2011) ("bodily injury" includes bodily hurt or pain; observable wounds not required)
- Russo v. White, 241 Va. 23 (1991) (IIED requires severe emotional distress; mere fear, stress, or humiliation often insufficient)
- Shirvinski v. United States Coast Guard, 673 F.3d 308 (4th Cir. 2012) (Va. statutory conspiracy targets injury to business/property interests, not personal torts)
- Zaklit v. Global Linguist Solutions, LLC, 53 F. Supp. 3d 835 (E.D. Va. 2014) (reasonable apprehension of force and submission can support false imprisonment claim)