Opinions or Insults Cannot Support a Defamation Claim

In the case of Durando v. The Trustees of the U. of Penn., No. 21-756 (E.D. Pa. June 17, 2022 Beetlestone, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed a Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in a defamation action.

The court ruled that the Plaintiff’s defamation claim failed where the alleged statements at issue constituted non-actionable opinion or hyperbolic insults. The court additionally noted that, based upon the record before the court, the Plaintiff could not prove a reputational injury or a financial loss.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (July 14, 2022).

Proper Jurisdiction for Social Media Defamation Claim Reviewed

In the case of Gorman v. Shpetrik, No. 2:20-CV-04759-CMR (E.D. Pa. March 10, 2022 Rufe, J.), the court addressed jurisdiction issues, and other issues, arising out of a claim of defamation related to online post and tweets that allegedly damaged the Plaintiff’s reputation.

With regard to the jurisdiction issue, the court found that the defendant allegedly directed allegedly defamatory messages to a person within the jurisdiction, with the intent to damage the reputation of another person also in that jurisdiction.  The court found that the defendant had therefore been involved in activity expressly directed at the jurisdiction such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction was proper over the case presented.

Relative to a statute of limitations issues raised by one of the Defendants, the court noted that the limitations period began to run when defamatory material was published.

The court also noted that the Plaintiff’s lack of knowledge as to the Defendant’s identity could not support an application of the discovery rule under the facts presented in this case. 

However, the court found that the Plaintiff had sufficiently pled a claim of fraudulent concealment by alleging that the Defendant had provided false information when registering on the social media platforms on which the allegedly defamatory material was allegedly published. As such, the court allowed discovery on this issue before making a determination as to whether the doctrine of fraudulent concealment could serve to toll the statute of limitations on some of the Plaintiff’s claims in this matter.

The court additionally dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress after finding that this claim failed because the Plaintiff had not alleged any physical injury connected to or caused by the Plaintiff’s alleged emotional distress.

The court also found that the Plaintiff’s claims for civil conspiracy failed because the Plaintiff had not alleged that all members of the purported conspiracy shared a common purpose, but rather, merely alleged that they took acts that furthered the alleged purpose of the conspiracy.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (April 6, 2022).

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Addresses Proper Venue for Defamation Claims Based Upon Internet Publications

In the case of Fox v. Smith, No. 39 EAP 2019 (Pa. Nov. 17, 2021) (Op. by Saylor, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed whether the standards governing the selection of an appropriate venue of litigating libel or defamation claims grounded on newspaper publications should also be applied to causes of action premised upon internet-based publications.

The court reviewed the prior cases indicating that the applicable law of venue under Pa. R.C.P. 1006 and 2179 provides that an action against an individual or corporation may be commenced in a county in which the cause of action arose. Under prior Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent, relative to defamation and libel actions, a cause of action in this regard has been deemed to arise in locations where the publication of the statements had occurred.

In this case, a democratic candidate for Mayor of the Borough of Chester Heights in Delaware County was defeated in an election and, thereafter, brought a defamation action against her political opponent and certain other organizations, alleging defamation and other claims. The Complaint asserted that, during the campaign, the Defendant published information on the internet and on social media websites falsely accusing the Plaintiff of having been charged, in another state, with criminal conduct in the form of allegedly engaging in a fraudulent banking transaction.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled, on the facts before it, that venue in a defamation action arising from internet communications and/or publications is proper in any jurisdiction where comments were read by individuals who understood such comments to be defamatory. As such, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the lower court rulings that overruled the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to venue.

The court stated that, when a person is defamed on the internet, which has worldwide reach, a defamation cause of action can arise in multiple venues. The court further held that an allegedly defamed Plaintiff could choose any venue in which publication and the injury occurred, even if the publications occurred in many different venues.


Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 7, 2021).

Source of image:  Photo by Headway on www.unsplash.com.

Latest Appellate Decision on Defamation-Type Claims

In the case of Meyers v. Certified Guar. Co. LLC, 2019 Pa. Super. 316 (Pa. Super. Oct. 18, 2019 Murray, J., Strassburger, J., and Pelligrini, J.) (Op. by Pellegrini, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that a trial court erred in dismissing a Plaintiff’s claim for defamation and related torts.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs were in the profession of restoring comic books and the Defendant company graded and certified comic books for valuation purposes.

This decision is notable as providing the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s latest review on Pennsylvania law pertaining to claims such as defamation, false light, tortious interference with a contract, and civil conspiracy claims.

The decision is also notable in that Pennsylvania Superior Court held that Pennsylvania did not recognize the assumption of risk doctrine as a defense to a false light claim.

In the end, the Superior Court ruled that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the defamation claims presented as there was evidence of communications by the Defendant that were disclosed to third parties.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 5, 2019).

Pennsylvania Superior Court Decides Proper Venue For Internet Defamation Cases (Case of First Impression)

The issue of proper venue in a case of alleged defamation on the world wide web was addressed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Fox v. Smith, 2019 Pa. Super. 166 (Pa. Super. May 23, 2019 Kunselman, J., Murray, J., Pelligreni, J.)(Op. by Pellegrini, J.)(Murray, J., Concurring).

The appellate court ruled that venue is proper in internet defamation cases in any venue where the Plaintiff suffered reputational harm, even though the actions underlying the defamation may have occurred elsewhere.

In this particular case, venue was found to be proper in Philadelphia where the Plaintiff allegedly sustained harm to his reputation even though the acts of defamation allegedly occurred elsewhere.

To review the Majority Opinion, please click HERE.

The Concurring Opinion can be viewed HERE.

In his Concurring Opinion, Judge Murray joined the Majority in its decision but wrote his additional Opinion to note that this was a case of first impression to which prevailing venue case law was applied to the novel scenario of electronic communications.  In his Concurring Opinion, Judge Murray urges the "[Pennsylvania] Supreme Court, its rules committees, and our legislature to provide further guidance in the evolving area of electronic communications."

Source:  "Court Summaries" by Timothy L. Clawges in the Pennsylvania Bar News (July 1, 2019)

Motion for Remittitur of Punitive Damages Granted

In the case of Jester v. Hutt, No. 1:15-CV-00205 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 29, 2018 Kane, J.), the court granted a Motion for Remittitur of Punitive Damages.  

According to the Opinion, the court found that an award of $90,000.00 for punitive damages in a defamation case was constitutionally excessive where the jury only awarded $1.00 in actual damages.  

The court also noted that the level of reprehensibility with regards to the Defendant was low under the facts presented.   The court also emphasized that there was no risk of physical injury or danger to the safety of others relative to the underlying event. 

The court cut the punitive damages down to $5,500.00.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck, of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm and the writer of the excellent Drug and Device Law blog for bringing this case to my attention.

UPDATE:  The trial court's decision in this case was overturned by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision handed down by that Court on August 28, 2019.  Click HERE to view that decision.

Judge Nealon Addresses Applicable Statute of Limitations in Defamation/Tortious Interference Claim Based Upon Same Statements

In his recent decision in the case of Pittsman v. Dr. David Perrone, No. 11-CV-1235 (C.P. Lacka. Co. April 11, 2013 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas granted a defendant's motion for summary judgment based upon the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations in a combined defamation and tortious interference with business relations lawsuit.

The defense argued that defamation claims are governed by a one year statute of limitation under 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5523(1) and that, since the tortious interference with business relations was based upon the same allegedly defamatory statements, that separate claim should also be found to be time-barred under the facts presented.

Judge Nealon held that when a plaintiff's tortious interference with business relations claim is predicated upon the same defamatory statements and actions serving as the basis for the plaintiff's defamation claim, both causes of action are governed by the one year statute of limitations rather than the tortious interference claim being subject to a two year limitations period. 


Anyone wishing to review Judge Nealon's decision in Pittsman may click this LINK.

Summary Judgment Granted in Lackawanna County Defamation Case

In his recent decision in the case of Nasser v. Cooper, No. 2007 - Civil - 1390 (C.P. Lacka. Co. June 7, 2012 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas ruled on a summary judgment motion arising out of a case involving accountants who sued their former client for slander based upon defamatory statements allegedly made.  

Judge Terrence R. Nealon

The former client filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the Plaintiffs could not make out a prima facie case for defamation under 42 Pa.C.S. 8343(a).

The court granted summary judgment after finding that, based upon several reasons, the Plaintiffs had not sustained their burden of proof to get beyond the summary judgment stage.

In his Opinion, Judge Nealon thoroughly reviewed a variety of issues in defamation law, including the need for (1) admissible hearsay evidence of publication or procurement of republication, (2) defamatory meaning of the publication, and (3) proof of special damages.

Anyone wishing to review this Opinion in Nasser v. Cooper by Judge Nealon may click this LINK.

Source of image:  thetimes-tribune.com

Defamation Decision Out of Lackawanna County

In the case of Lilac Meadows, Inc. v. Rivello, No. 2011-Civ-4375 (C.P. Lacka. Co. April 5, 2012 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, offered up a detailed opinion addressing Preliminary Objections filed in a defamation action.

According to the opinion, the Plaintiff, a land development corporation, sued two local residents for slander based upon statements the residents allegedly made regarding the Plaintiff’s land development project during a public council meeting.

One of the residents filed Preliminary Objections in the nature of a demurrer to the slander claim on the grounds that his remarks were not capable of a defamatory meaning. The Court found that this resident’s alleged comments about the corporation’s property and its predecessor-in-interest’s approval process did not constitute slander under an application of Pennsylvania law. As such, the Court granted that resident’s demurrer and dismissed the slander action filed against him.

The other Defendant resident’s Preliminary Objections were denied. That resident’s demurrer’s were based upon the defenses of truth and privilege. Other Preliminary Objections regarding insufficient specificity were also overruled by the Court with regard to that Defendant’s Preliminary Objections.

According to the opinion, the Defendants made statements at a public meeting with regards to how the Plaintiff was moving ahead with a certain project.

In his opinion, Judge Nealon provides a thorough update on the law of defamation and the defenses of privilege and truth in that context. Judge Nealon also addressed the proper types of damages claims that are permitted in a defamation action.

Anyone desiring a copy of Judge Nealon’s opinion in the case of Lilac Meadows, Inc. v. Rivello, may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.

The Citizen's Voice Wins Re-Trial of Defamation Case Previously Presided Over by Ciavarella

On December 8, 2011, Judge Joseph Van Jura of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas issued a detailed 39 paged Opinion outlining his decision in favor of the Citizen's Voice in re-trial of a local businessman's defamation lawsuit.

The case of Joseph v. The Scranton Times, et al., No. 3816 - C of 2002 (C.P. Luz. Co. Dec. 8, 2011 Van Jura, J.) was the same matter that the newspaper previously alleged was fixed during the first trial by now-jailed county judge Mark A. Ciavarella.  The first trial had resulted in a $3.5 million dollar verdict in favor of the Plaintiff before being overturned on appeal.


Anyone desiring a copy of Judge Van Jura's Opinion, which contains a detailed analysis of the current status of defamation law and the available damages under such a claim in Pennsylvania, may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.

Detailed Opinion out of Lackawanna County on Defamation, Fraud, Res Judicata, and Collateral Estoppel Issues

For those of you who deal with the torts of defamation and fraud, and for those of you who are facing a res judicata or collateral estoppel issue, I have come across a recent Opinion by Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas outlining the current status of the law on these causes of action in the case of Davis v. PPL Sustainable Energy Fund, 10 - CV - 706 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Oct. 13, 2011 Nealon, J.)

This case involved a former board member of a non-profit energy conservation fund who sued the fund's directors and agents alleging fraud and defamation in orchestrating his removal from the board.  Judge Nealon denied the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and found that the Plaintiff had indeed stated valid causes of action for defamation and fraud.

The Opinion also analyzes in detail the difference between the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel in terms of the defense argument that the Plaintiff's claims were previously adjudicated before an administrative agency.  The trial court found that the Plaintiff was not precluded from pursuing the claims presented since the tort claims were not at issue in the prior administrative proceedings.

Anyone desiring a copy of Judge Nealon's 28 page Opinion in the case of Davis v. PPL Sustainable Energy Fund may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.

Former Ciavarella Case Being Litigated Back in Luzerne County

A case entitled Joseph v. The Scranton Times, No. 3816-Civil-2002 (Luz. Co. Dec. 13, 2010, Van Jura, J.), formerly handled by Mark A. Ciavarella when he was a Luzerne County Judge, is back at the trial court level and is being litigated now in front of Judge Joseph Van Jura.

The Citizens’ Voice matter stems from a verdict Ciavarella entered in favor of Joseph following a non-jury trial in 2006. The case centered on a series of articles the newspaper ran in 2001 regarding searches that were conducted at the home and business of Joseph and William “Billy” D’Elia. Joseph was never charged with any crime in connection with the searches. He filed suit against the newspaper, alleging the articles damaged his reputation.

You may recall that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court previously overturned Ciavarella's $3.5 million defamation verdict against The Citizens’ Voice newspaper and ordered a new trial, ruling there was a “pervasive appearance of impropriety” in how the case was assigned to and handled by former Luzerne County judge Mark Ciavarella.

On remand for a new trial, the case was assigned to Judge Van Jura in Luzerne County. With his December 13, 2010 Opinion and Order, Judge Van Jura addressed an Omnibus Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of all of the Defendants.

After applying the facts to the law on a variety of defamation-type issues, the court granted the Defendants' Motion in part and denied it in part.

Anyone desiring a copy of this Opinion by Judge Van Jura, which contains thorough recitations of the law applicable to defamation actions, may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.

Case of First Impression in Defamation Context

Just in time for the Holiday Season, Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas has issued his opinion on what appears to be a case of first impression in a defamation case involving the heartwarming facts of the defendant getting into an argument with the plaintiff and calling the plaintiff "a big dumb f*cking Polack" and "a son-of-a-bitch liar."

In Koldjeski v. Colombo, PICS Case No 09-2117 (C.P. Lackawanna Dec. 4, 2009 Nealon, J. ), Judge Nealon noted that there were no prior opinions on-point on the issue of whether the ethnic slur at issue was defamatory under Pennsylvania law.

Apparently, there are other cases over the years that have ruled, in general, that racial epithets, while offensive, were not capable of defamatory meaning. Judge Nealon noted in his opinion that "[n]o Pennsylvania decisional precedent has recognized an ethnic slur as a basis for a valid defamation claim." He also researched and found the same conclusion in other jurisdictions.

So, while Judge Nealon slammed the defendant for making the first remark noted, he ruled that the slur could not be actionable as defamation or slander under Pennsylvania law. The court did allow the defamation case to move ahead with regards to the second remark in which the defendant called the plaintiff a "liar" as such a public accusation that could harm the plaintiff's position in his employment and in the local government position that he held.

The plaintiff in this matter was represented by Brigid Carey, Esquire and the defendant is represented by P. Timothy Kelly, Esquire of Matisse & Kelley.



A copy of the court's opinion can be secured for a small fee by contacting the Pennsylvania Law Weekly's Instant Case Service at 1-800-276-7427 and giving the PICS Case No. noted above.