TCU asks court to strike almost 29 pages from plaintiffs’ complaint


All TCU students are now eligible to run for the student body officer positions. (Heesoo Yang/Staff Photographer)

By Renee Umsted

Lawyers for TCU want the U.S. District court to strike more than 44 paragraphs from the third amended complaint filed on behalf of Jane Does Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

According to the document, which was filed July 22 in the U. S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas by TCU’s attorneys at McDonald Sanders, the sections should be disregarded because they contain “redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matters.”

The July 22 document.

“As a practice, TCU does not comment on pending litigation beyond the papers we file in court,” TCU said in a statement. “TCU is focused on creating a respectful and inclusive community for all students.”

The motion lists some of the plaintiffs’ allegations the defendants claim the court should strike. This includes Jane Does Nos. 1, 2 and 3’s mentioning of TCU’s history, such as experiences of Black female students at the university during the 1960s.

The motion also gives examples of “scandalous” allegations put forth by the plaintiffs, including their description of TCU as a “bigoted and narrow-minded institution,” their use of the N-word and “unnecessary references to stereotypical terms of an earlier era,” and their comparison of the university to a dirty toilet.

According to the motion, TCU and the other defendants (Diane Snow, Andrew Schoolmaster, Rob Garnett, Darron Turner, Russell Mack, Leigh Holland and Aaron Chimbel) would be prejudiced if they had to address each of the allegations, which they say are not relevant to proving the alleged discrimination of Jane Does Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

In a separate document, the McDonald Sanders attorneys ask the court to dismiss the case against individual defendants because “Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts sufficient to show that the claims asserted have facial plausibility.”

According to the document, facial plausibility allows the court to infer that a defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct.

“No matter how many times Plaintiffs repeat them, legal conclusions, conclusory allegations, and conjecture cannot take the place of the required well-pleaded facts,” according to the document. “Plaintiffs make no effort to provide any analysis as to how their factual assertions state plausible claims against the Individual Defendants.”

In addition, that document asks the court to dismiss the suit against Chimbel for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The document asking the suit against Chimbel.

The defendants’ exhibit 1.

According to the document, the plaintiffs’ arguments both for general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction fail because Doe No. 1 does not give evidence to support the allegation that the former TCU professor advertised his services in Texas and does not allege “jurisdictional facts” to show her allegations sprung from his contacts in Texas.

In a separate document, TCU repeats its motion to dismiss the suit, based on the claim that the allegations of Jane Does Nos. 1, 2 and 3 do not allow the court to infer any intentional discrimination based on race or sex.

A document filed on behalf of TCU asking the court to dismiss the suit.

According to the document, the plaintiffs haven’t shown that “nearly identical individuals were treated better or more favorably than Plaintiffs” or that they lost any educational opportunities.

In addition, TCU claims the plaintiffs’ pattern and practice theory does not hold because they do not give any statistics to show that TCU’s normal practice is to “avoid investigating or ignoring discrimination complaints made by African-American females.”

The plaintiffs, who have dropped White and Wiggins, LLP for Anozie, LLP, allege in an objection to TCU’s motion to convert to summary judgment that “indeed, this lawsuit is about whether TCU and its agents have a pattern and practice of discriminating against racial minorities and women.”

The plaintiffs’ counsel’s motions to withdraw and substitute attorney, filed July 16.

Notice that Keron A. Wright of Anozie, LLP entered as additional counsel for Jane Does Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

The document asking the court to allow Kevin B. Wiggins of White and Wiggins, LLP to withdraw and substitute Nnamdi M. Anozie of Anozie, LLP.

The motion to withdraw Kevin B. Wiggins of White and Wiggins, LLP as lead attorney and substitute Nnamdi M. Anozie.

According to the document, TCU’s deliberate indifference and its previous indifferent behavior toward racism and sexism gave the plaintiffs’ “peers, professors and administration the ‘green-light’ to dehumanize them, knowing that TCU would not reprimand them for abusing African-American women.”

The objection, filed on behalf of Jane Does Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on July 13 in the U. S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas.

Deliberate indifference, as defined in the document, is evident where an institution’s response to discrimination is “clearly unreasonable” amid known circumstances.

In the document, the plaintiffs said Chimbel’s claim not to be a resident of Texas is a lie, and since he has enough contact with the state to establish personal jurisdiction, his motion to dismiss should be denied.

The plaintiffs also allege in the document they have adequately pled their claims related to ADA Title II, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title VII, fraud and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, negligence, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment and conspiracy.