From today’s decision by Judge Trevor McFadden (D.D.C.) in Soffer v. George Washington Univ.:
Two former George Washington University (“GWU”) students and a student organization on behalf of its members sue GWU for its treatment of Jewish students and its handling of on-campus antisemitism. Though the Complaint paints a dark picture, its length—spanning nearly two hundred pages and over one thousand paragraphs—violates basic pleading rules. The Court will thus dismiss the Complaint without prejudice and permit Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that complies with federal pleading rules….
The Complaint before the Court describes a multi-year pattern of unaddressed antisemitism at GWU that came to a head with the Hamas terrorist attacks in October 2023 and worsened in following months. Sabrina Soffer and Ari Shapiro, two Jewish students who attended GWU, along with an organization called “Compliance, Accountability, Policy, Ethics-Ed,” sue GWU over these events and seek damages and a variety of injunctive relief….
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires complaints contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 8 “underscore[s] the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules.” …
A complaint may offend Rule 8 in more ways than one. “[E]xcessively long” and “rambling” complaints that are “full of irrelevant and confusing material” violate its requirements. Indeed, while pleading rules generally provide plaintiffs “wide latitude in framing” claims, courts have “unhesitatingly dismissed” complaints that consist of “a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated” charges. Likewise, “repetitive, discursive and argumentative account[s] of the alleged wrongs suffered by the plaintiff” pose a problem.
Plaintiff’s Complaint flouts these requirements. Recall that Plaintiffs’ allegations span nearly two hundred pages and over one thousand paragraphs. Significantly shorter complaints often earn dismissal. And much of its length stems from excessive narrative. See Compl. ¶¶ 150–179 (nearly thirty paragraphs “On Jewish Identity and the Meaning of Antisemitism”); id. ¶¶ 455–543 (nearly ninety paragraphs describing speakers and events hosted by the Middle Eastern studies department); id. ¶¶ 714–880 (over 160 paragraphs narrating the encampment day-by day, recounting every communication between students and the administration). Rule 8 prevents Plaintiffs from “forc[ing]” either the Court or GWU “to select the relevant material from [this] mass of verbiage.”
Plaintiffs make no attempt to justify the Complaint’s length or otherwise address GWU’s argument about Rule 8. And unlike the less “regrettable” scenario in which a pro se complaint breaches Rule 8, “the complaint here was crafted and signed by lawyers who are members of the bar of this court.” These features favor dismissal.
The Court recognizes the serious nature of allegations at issue. It emphasizes that it dismisses only the Complaint without prejudice rather than dismissing the lawsuit…. The Court accordingly grants Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of this Order….
If you really want to, you can read the Complaint here.
