PITTSBURGH – A Pittsburgh man who argued that he was defamed and painted as an illicit sexual predator by two individuals who provided a series of text messages between him and a young student to a rowing club who was considering hiring the plaintiff and later did not do so, recently withdrew his case.
Florin Curuea of Pittsburgh first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 6, 2020 versus two John Doe defendants (later identified as Zachary Petronic and A.J. Smith).
“On or about Sept. 2, 2020, plaintiff, was informed that John Doe No. 1 had recently emailed a number of text messages bearing dates starting in August and ending in September 2011 to the Steel City Rowing Club. Those text messages were between plaintiff and a female who was 17 years old at the time. Plaintiff was 29 years old at the time. The female was one of plaintiff’s rowing students,” the suit said.
“The text messages dealt with, among other things, a possible private meeting taking place between them, the need for secrecy if a meeting did take place, and the final decision they jointly made that a meeting should not take place. As a result of receiving the text messages, the Club revisited the issue of hiring plaintiff and withdrew its offer of employment to him. By themselves, without more, the text messages created the impression that plaintiff was soliciting a sexual relationship with the female.”
According to Curuea, that impression was both wrong and misleading.
“John Doe No. 1 failed to provide to the Club the police report concerning the text messages which concluded that plaintiff’s conduct, though ‘inappropriate conduct for a coach,’ were ‘not explicit or direct in soliciting any type of sexual relationship,’ ‘were not sexual in nature,’ and were ‘not illegal’ and that the female’s father fully concurred with the police report,” the suit stated.
Though it hired Curuea in the summer, he said the Club withdrew his employment offer after it received the text messages in question.
“Plaintiff is a private figure, not a public figure. A public school coach has been held to be a public figure, in contrast to a coach in a private club. Because plaintiff is a private figure, the burden of proving that the representations without the police report and letter were true and not false and misleading is on John Doe No. 1 and John Doe No. 2. If, for the sake of argument, plaintiff is a public figure, the publications made by John Doe No. 1 and John Doe No. 2 were made with actual malice – with knowledge that the statements were false or with reckless disregard of its falsity,” according to the lawsuit.
“Alternatively, John Doe No. 1 and John Doe No. 2 acted negligently or intentionally (but without actual malice) in defaming plaintiff, a non-public figure. The publications by John Doe No. 1 and John Doe No. 2 did not merely embarrass or annoy plaintiff. On the contrary they grievously fractured his standing in the community of respectable society and lowered him in the esteem of his peers and exposed him to their contempt.”
On Jan. 12, 2021, the plaintiff filed motion for leave for two subpoenas as to permit John Doe discovery (production of documents), connected to the identity of the two individuals who provided the text messages.
“Based on his conversations with the president of the rowing club, plaintiff’s counsel has inferred that, conspicuous by their absence from the materials provided by the John Does to the club, were (a) the police report clearing the coach of any unlawful conduct, ending all investigation of him, and confirming that the female’s father had concurred that no action was warranted against plaintiff, as well as (b) a letter from a person close to the situation at that time in 2011, Zachary Petronic, reaffirming the accuracy of the police report,” the motion stated.
“Plaintiff and his counsel then received information from another person who believes, based on what he has heard, that the John Does are Zachary Petronic and A.J. Smith. This information is regarded by plaintiff and his counsel as hearsay. The subpoenas now requested are directed to Messrs. Petronic and Smith.”
After an amended complaint was filed on Aug. 11, preliminary objections were filed by the defendants on Aug. 27.
“The amended complaint does not allege that Smith himself made any alleged defamatory statements. Rather, it only accuses him of forwarding Curuea’s own inappropriate text messages. In addition, there is no allegation in the amended complaint that the text messages allegedly provided to SCRC were not the true and accurate text messages between Curuea and the minor female. As a matter of law, merely forwarding a plaintiff’s own words to a third party cannot form the basis for a defamation claim under Pennsylvania law, and Count I of the amended complaint should be dismissed with prejudice for its failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” the objections stated, in part.
“Although the claims in the amended complaint are based upon allegedly defamatory text messages forwarded by Smith to SCRC, Curuea has failed to attach the text messages to the amended complaint. Here, Curuea’s failure to attach the text messages to the amended complaint makes it impossible for this Court to determine if the communications are, in fact, defamatory and unfairly prejudices Smith’s ability to defend this action. In the event this Court does not sustain Smith’s preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer to Count I, Curuea should be ordered to file a second amended complaint in which he attaches the allegedly defamatory text messages.”
UPDATE
Through his counsel, the plaintiff opted to voluntarily discontinue the matter on Oct. 19.
“Please discontinue this action as to all defendants, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 229, and without prejudice to the related case,” the plaintiff’s notice stated.
The plaintiff was represented by Vincent J. Restauri Jr. in Cranberry Township.
The defendants were represented by Christopher W. Cahillane of Tucker Arensberg and James W. Harvey of Margolis Edelstein, in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-011551
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com