ALLENTOWN – A settlement has been reached in litigation brought against Millersville University, by the parents of a student murdered on the school’s campus by her boyfriend in February 2015.
The lawsuit, brought nearly six years ago by John and Jeanette Hall, alleged that the university could have prevented the murder of their daughter, Karlie Hall, if only school officials took action after repeated reports of domestic violence committed against Karlie by her boyfriend-turned-murderer, Gregorio Orrostieta.
Orrostieta, 26, murdered Karlie, an 18 year-old freshman student at Millersville and his girlfriend of just less than one year, in her dorm room within Bard Hall on Feb. 8, 2015. In May 2016, Orrostieta was convicted of third-degree murder and received the maximum sentence of 20 to 40 years in prison.
It was the Halls’ contention that their daughter’s residence on campus conferred upon the school a responsibility to protect students living on school grounds from dangers “that were known or should have been known.”
Additionally, the Halls’ lawsuit provided examples where Orrostieta’s prior assaults against their daughter were brought to the attention of school authorities.
After a violent altercation with Karlie on Oct. 5, 2014, Orrostieta was led away from campus, due to the intervention of an R.A. who called police during the assault.
Karlie’s parents, however, allege that campus police didn’t interview Karlie, open an investigation or report the incident to them, according to the suit. Likewise, they say a second assault three months later, which resulted in Karlie sustaining a fractured orbital bone, was also not investigated.
Inquiries made to campus police by plaintiff Jeannette Hall after the second assault confirmed the official lack of records pertaining to incidents between their daughter and Orrostieta.
The mother of Karlie’s roommate, Tina Flexer, also made reports to school authorities, which allegedly also went unheeded, according to the suit.
In the trial court, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Edward G. Smith found that under Title IX, Millersville was not liable for the conduct of student guests.
It was an opinion not shared by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which ruled on Jan. 11 that the trial court was in error, when it initially determined that Millersville lacked sufficient notice it could face liability under Title IX for its deliberate indifference to known sexual harassment perpetrated by a non-student guest.
“The District Court concluded that, at most, funding recipients had notice they could face liability from harassment committed by parties that the university had invited, like a visiting athlete or professor. We believe this reading was in error,” Nygaard said, in the Third Circuit opinion.
“Because the ‘visiting speaker or members of a visiting athletic club’ language was preceded by an ‘e.g.’ it should be read as a list of illustrative examples, not an exhaustive list of all third parties whose harassment creates liability.”
The case was then remanded to the trial court, where proceedings were heading towards a trial to be held at the end of September. In the process, a number of motions in limine were filed by both sides, in an attempt to preclude the introduction of evidence from opposing counsel.
UPDATE
However, on Sept. 28, Smith announced that a settlement had been reached, that all of the motions in limine were dismissed as moot and the case was closed.
“This matter having been closed by grant of summary judgment on Sept. 5, 2019, and thereafter, the judgment vacated and remanded for trial by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on Feb. 16, 2022 and counsel for the parties having advised the court that this matter is now settled; accordingly, it is hereby ordered as follows: The outstanding motions in limine are denied as moot,” Smith said.
“This action is dismissed with prejudice, without costs, pursuant to the agreement of counsel. The court will retain jurisdiction for a period of 90 days while counsel finalize the settlement agreements. The docket properly reflects that this matter is now closed.”
Attempts from the Pennsylvania Record to obtain comment on the settlement from counsel for both parties were unsuccessful.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:17-cv-00220
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case 19-3275
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com