From performative litigation to strikes and sanctions

Add another case to the growing canon of failed Title VI antisemitism suits in which courts take plaintiffs to task for press-release pleadings. The latest comes in the suit against Penn. The court dismissed without prejudice, giving plaintiffs one more chance (their third) to plead the claim, but closed with this:

However, and as has been repeatedly observed throughout this Opinion, many of the more than 300 paragraphs in the Amended Complaint contain language which is unnecessarily inflammatory and “impertinent,” and immaterial allegations that have virtually nothing to do with the claims which Plaintiffs are endeavoring to raise. Filing of yet another complaint would be Plaintiffs’ third bite at the apple. Plaintiffs are cautioned that if they choose to file a third complaint, the additional allegations must be alleged in good faith and in compliance with Rules 8(a) and 11.

The judge mentions "impertinent" language, bringing FRCP 12(f) into the mix and threatening to strike improper allegations. And he mentions Rule 11, suggesting he might be thinking about sanctions if the plaintiffs continue to use the complaint as a platform to appeal to Fox News and the ADL rather than for seeking cognizable judicial relief.