Jane Doe v. Sigma Alpha Mu Fraternity, Inc. et al.
Plaintiff, Jane Doe, alleged that she attended college fraternity party at USC where she was served and consumed alcohol despite being underage. After becoming intoxicated at the party, Plaintiff alleged that she was sexually assaulted by a fraternity member who was also in attendance. The fraternity party at issue was being hosted by the Mu Theta Chapter of Sigma Alpha Mu Fraternity, which is a local, undergraduate fraternity chapter at USC. USC signed off on the party before it began, and the Mu Theta Chapter hired an outside events company to provide private security.
Plaintiff sued her alleged assailant, the Mu Theta Chapter, the event services company that provided the security, and four other fraternity-based entities – Sigma Alpha Mu Fraternity, Inc. (the national fraternity chapter), SAM USC Housing, LLC (the house corporation that owned the chapter house where the alleged assault occurred), SAM Property Management, LLC (the property manager of the chapter house), and SAM National Properties, LLC (a national entity focused on investing in undergraduate fraternity houses., including the Mu Theta Chapter House). Plaintiff brought claims of negligence, premises liability, negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, negligent security, assault, battery, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the defendants. Plaintiff sought compensatory damages in excess of $5,000,000, as well as punitive damages.
We represented Sigma Alpha Mu Fraternity, Inc., SAM USC Housing, LLC, SAM Property Management, LLC, and SAM National Properties, LLC. Plaintiff’s overarching theory of liability against our clients was that they were negligent because they had knowledge that the Mu Theta Chapter had previously been placed on probation for unrelated disciplinary issues but, despite such knowledge, failed to institute the appropriate safeguards or take the necessary corrective measures to make sure that the Mu Theta Chapter did not host social events that violated fraternity rules and regulations. Plaintiff alleged that our clients all had a duty to control and/or supervise the Mu Theta Chapter and its members, and it breached this duty when it allowed, and did not stop Mu Theta from hosting the fraternity party where Plaintiff was furnished alcohol and then assaulted by a Mu Theta Chapter member. Plaintiff also alleged that each of our clients were alter-egos of one another and, thus, each should be liable for the acts and omissions of the others.
After extensive discovery was conducted, but before Plaintiff or her alleged assailant were ever deposed, we filed motions for summary judgment on behalf of each of our four clients. We argued that none of our clients owed Plaintiff any duty of care and there was no evidence to support Plaintiff’s theory that they were all alter egos of one another. Our motions relied heavily on Barenborg v. Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity, (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 70, where the Court of Appeal held that national fraternal organizations do not owe injured third parties any duty of care because they do not possess the requisite special relationship with their local chapters or their chapter members. Ultimately, the Court issued two extremely thorough rulings granting all our motions in full and rejecting all of Plaintiff’s arguments. The Court fully adopted the court’s holding in the Barenborg as to the duty issue and completely rejected Plaintiff’s alter ego theory.