Quantcast

Defendants fight claim that GoFundMe for alleged abuse victims defamed Pittsburgh man

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Defendants fight claim that GoFundMe for alleged abuse victims defamed Pittsburgh man

State Court
Jasonhpeck

Peck | DiBella Geer McAllister & Best

PITTSBURGH – A Pittsburgh man alleges that friends of his estranged wife organized an online fundraiser seeking domestic violence assistance in arguing that he was abusing his wife and children, when he counters those claims were meritless.

John Bout first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on March 8 versus Jennifer Lybarger and Roger Lybarger. All parties are of Pittsburgh.

“On Jan. 6, 2021, plaintiff John Bout was notified by his sister, Shnesha Bout, and his aunt Carol Celani, via telephone call, regarding a ‘GoFundMe’ web page which had been created by defendant, Jennifer Lybarger, as ‘organizer’, to attempt to fundraise on behalf of Mr. Bout’s estranged wife and children,” the suit stated.

“The original GoFundMe page, organized by defendant, Jennifer Lybarger, was seeking ‘domestic violence assistance’, on behalf of John Bout’s estranged wife, implying that plaintiff, John Bout, was allegedly abusing his estranged wife and children, despite there being zero merit to these claims.”

The original GoFundMe page, which was linked for public viewing to Facebook, did not specifically list or name plaintiff as an actor or perpetrator of domestic violence, however, the suit said the page identified the entire Bout family with great specificity.

During its operation, the fundraiser generated approximately $6,700.

Bout, an administrator in the Lawrence County Children Youth & Families agency, was then made aware of the online fundraiser and was the subject of mailings sent to his employer and numerous other Lawrence County employees, allegedly by the defendants, demanding his firing.

“Defendants have been publishing these blatant, malicious and reckless falsities to potentially hundreds or even thousands of recipients, including but not limited to, Mr. Bout’s family, friends, employer and co-workers, as well as the hundreds or thousands of Facebook connections to defendants, the gravity of which is not currently known by plaintiff or undersigned counsel,” per the suit.

“Plaintiff is an upstanding good citizen and great father, with a great reputation for character in his local community and work community. In fact, the defendants drafted and disseminated these defamatory communications about plaintiff, John Bout, solely in response to the fact that Mr. Bout filed a protection from abuse action.”

UPDATE

An attorney for the Lybargers filed an answer to the complaint along with new matter on April 26, largely denying Bout’s allegations and further asserting that the defendants did not defame or slander the plaintiff.

“The Lybargers deny that they made any false, malicious, reckless, and negligent statements or transmissions to anyone. As to the harm alleged by John Bout, upon reasonable investigation, the Lybargers are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of these allegations. Said allegations are, therefore, denied,” the answer stated, in part.

“The Lybargers deny that their acts and/or omissions caused any harm to John Bout…the Lybargers deny all attempts to cite, quote, summarize, paraphrase, or otherwise restate the letters and GoFundMe page. The letters and GoFundMe page are documents that speak for themselves. The Lybargers deny the characterization of conduct as a ‘criminal offense’ as a conclusion of law to which no response is required.”

Furthermore, the Lybargers denied that they “transmitted, published, or made any falsehoods to anyone, and deny that they ever acted with malice.”

“The Lybargers deny that they ever intended to cause the termination of Mr. Bout’s employment, deny that they knew that any of their statements would result in the termination of Mr. Bout’s employment, and deny that the termination of Mr. Bout’s employment was the likely result of any of the Lybargers’ conduct,” the answer said.

In new matter, the defendants argued Bout’s claims are “barred by the statute of limitations, to the extent that such rely upon statements publicized or otherwise made more than one year prior to the date upon which Bout initiated this litigation”, that they “did not publish any statements that are defamatory” and that Bout was not entitled to recover punitive damages.

Bout’s counsel responded to the answer and new matter on April 27, denying it in its entirety.

For counts of defamation, slander per se, negligence and injurious falsehood, the plaintiff is seeking damages, individually, jointly and/or severally, for an amount in excess of the arbitration limits of the County, including punitive damages.

The plaintiff is represented by Matthew J. Scanlon of Scanlon & Wojton, in Pittsburgh.

The defendants are represented by Jason H. Peck of DiBella Geer McAllister & Best, also in Pittsburgh.

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-21-001946

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News