In the ruling issued today by Judge Trevor McFadden of the D.D.C., in the case Soffer v. George Washington University:
The suit brought by two former GWU students and a student organization on their members’ behalf challenges GWU’s treatment of Jewish students and its handling of antisemitism on campus. Although the filing presents a troubling narrative, its nearly two hundred pages and more than a thousand paragraphs violate basic pleading standards. The court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice, granting Plaintiffs leave to submit an amended complaint that complies with federal pleading rules….
The pleading before the court depicts a multi-year pattern of unaddressed antisemitism at GWU that culminated with the Hamas attacks in October 2023 and intensified in the months after. Sabrina Soffer and Ari Shapiro, two Jewish students at GWU, along with a group named “Compliance, Accountability, Policy, Ethics-Ed,” sue GWU over these events and seek damages along with a range of injunctive relief….
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that complaints contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 8 “emphasizes the clarity and conciseness demanded by the federal pleading rules.” …
A complaint may offend Rule 8 in more ways than one. “[E]xcessively long” and “rambling” complaints that are packed with irrelevant and confusing material violate its requirements. Indeed, while pleading rules generally grant plaintiffs wide latitude in framing their claims, courts have “unhesitatingly dismissed” complaints that consist of a “labyrinthine prolixity of unrelated” charges. Likewise, “repetitive, discursive and argumentative accounts of the alleged wrongs suffered by the plaintiff” pose a problem.
The Plaintiffs’ Complaint flouts these requirements. As a reminder, the allegations span nearly two hundred pages and exceed a thousand paragraphs. Significantly shorter complaints frequently warrant dismissal. Much of its length stems from an excessive amount of narrative. See Compl. ¶¶ 150–179 (nearly thirty paragraphs on “On Jewish Identity and the Meaning of Antisemitism”); id. ¶¶ 455–543 (almost ninety paragraphs detailing speakers and events hosted by the department of Middle Eastern studies); id. ¶¶ 714–880 (over 160 paragraphs recounting the encampment day-by-day, including every exchange between students and the administration). Rule 8 prevents Plaintiffs from “forcing” the Court or GWU “to select the relevant material from this mass of verbiage.”
Plaintiffs offer no justification for the Complaint’s length or otherwise respond to GWU’s Rule 8 argument. And unlike the more regrettable scenario in which a pro se complaint runs afoul of Rule 8, “the complaint here was crafted and signed by lawyers who are members of the bar of this court.” These aspects favor dismissal.
The Court acknowledges the seriousness of the asserted claims. It stresses that it is dismissing only the Complaint without prejudice rather than dismissing the entire case. The Court accordingly grants Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of this Order….
If you truly want to, you can read the complete Complaint here.
