Claim Over Penn’s Alleged Knowing Toleration of Anti-Semitic Behavior Dismissed,
From today’s decision by Judge Mitchell Goldberg (E.D. Pa.) in Yakoby v. Trustees of Univ. of Pa.:
Plaintiffs, Jewish students attending the University of Pennsylvania (“Penn”), allege it engaged in antisemitic conduct that warrants a federal lawsuit. Plaintiffs’ 111-page amended complaint sets out a wide variety of general allegations, complaints, historical and current events, and alleged antisemitic incidents that allegedly took place not just on Penn’s campus, but elsewhere in the United States and the world. The amended complaint also includes sweeping allegations of ideological, philosophical, religious, and political concerns and grievances, that have nothing to do with a federal lawsuit.
It is unclear why Plaintiffs’ counsel deemed it necessary to allege so many unrelated facts when doing so is directly contrary to federal pleading requirements. Indeed, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain only a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Penn has filed a Motion to Dismiss and Strike the Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. After review of Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, I find that it fails to sufficiently allege the facts necessary to plausibly state viable claims under Title VI, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and for breach of contract. Consequently, I will grant Penn’s motion. I will, however, provide Plaintiffs one last opportunity to amend its complaint, but only as to the Title VI and breach of contract claims….
Plaintiffs Eyal Yakoby, Jordan Davis, and Noah Rubin are Jewish undergraduate students attending the University of Pennsylvania. All three are members of Students Against Antisemitism (“SAA”), “a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, formed to defend human and civil rights, including the right of individuals to equal protection and to be free from antisemitism in higher education, through litigation and other means.”
Viewing their amended complaint as a whole, Plaintiffs essentially allege that since the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, Penn has permitted, tolerated and/or facilitated multiple antisemitic incidents on its campus that have created a hostile educational environment for Jewish students….
The court concluded plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims:
Penn’s subject matter jurisdiction challenge may be interpreted as being both factual and facial in nature insofar as it argues the amended complaint fails to plead the requisite elements of standing on its face and the actual facts of the case do not show Plaintiffs sustained actual injuries that were caused by any conduct by Penn. By arguing that Plaintiffs’ claims are not yet ripe for adjudication, Penn factually contests the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, submitting documentary evidence showing it has long had policies in place opposing antisemitism in all its forms on its campus. These documents also allegedly establish that since October 7, Penn has developed action plans to address and “combat” antisemitism and the expression of religious and racial hatred on its campus, and has increased its security measures to ensure the safety and well-being of its Jewish students….
Annexed to the Plaintiffs’ response in opposition to Penn’s motion are Declarations from Plaintiffs Yakoby and Davis attesting to incidents of antisemitism which they experienced personally and to the fact that the antisemitic campus hostilities are ongoing. Although it is difficult to parse through the 312 paragrap
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
