The charge is part of the Title IX lawsuit brought against MSU officials in November of 2015 by four women who allege their sexual misconduct cases were mishandled by the university.

In its motion to dismiss, Kappa Sigma Fraternity contends that it had no legal duty to protect Gross on the night of her alleged attack based on the legal requirements for negligence. 

“Quite simply, Kappa Sigma owed no legal duty to oversee the daily operations of its local chapters or to otherwise protect Plaintiff Gross from harm caused to her by the alleged criminal acts of John Doe,” the motion states.

Kappa Sigma’s national chapter asserts it has no legal duty to protect guests of its local chapter, Delta Psi, and therefore Gross’ charge cannot be upheld.

According to Michigan law, in order to establish a claim for negligence, the plaintiff must show the defendant owed them a legal duty to take care of them, and that the defendant breached that duty and caused harm because of that breach.

Kappa Sigma's Motion to Dismiss by The State News

In Gross’ response to Kappa Sigma’s motion to dismiss, her lawyers assert that based on the fact that Gross' alleged sexual assailant had committed a sexual assault before and was disciplined by MSU for that incident, her attack was foreseeable and therefore Kappa Sigma had a legal duty to protect Gross.

“It is foreseeable, then, that someone who has already sexually assaulted a female student, would, if allowed to participate in a fraternity social event at an unsupervised fraternity house with access to alcohol, sexually assault a female student,” the response states.

Gross’ lawyers also assert that Kappa Sigma had the legal duty to protect her because Gross was an invitee to their party on the night of her attack and therefore entrusted Kappa Sigma to protect her.

Response to Kappa Sigma's Motion to Dismiss by The State News

Kappa Sigma refuted both claims, asserting that the fraternity had no possible way of knowing what Mr. Doe might do with Gross and that Kappa Sigma had no legal duty to protect Gross solely based on her being a guest of the fraternity party.

“The ... Complaint fails to provide any information to support the notion that anyone at Kappa Sigma could have possibly known that Mr. Doe might sexually assault Ms. Gross,” Kappa Sigma’s motion states.

The two sides are arguing whether or not the fraternity had a legal duty to protect Gross.

Kappa Sigma asserts that Gross' lawyers have given no facts to support their claim that the fraternity had a legal duty to protect her based on what is necessary to prove negligence. Gross' lawyers vehemently disagree, citing the fact that Mr. Doe's actions were foreseeable because of his past sexual misconduct charge and Gross' status as a guest at the party which they assert required the fraternity by law to take care of her. 

The lawsuit is ongoing and no action has been taken on Kappa Sigma's motion as of Monday.