MEDIA – A state court judge has denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings and/or dismissal, in a case from a former member of the Borough of Eddystone’s Civil Service Commission who claimed he was removed from that post and defamed during a council meeting by the mayor and a councilperson regarding his alleged criminal record, which he stated does not exist.
Michael Knowles and Julie Knowles first filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on Aug. 24, 2021 versus the Borough of Eddystone, its Mayor Allen T. Reeves Jr., Borough Council Member Karen Reeves and both of those same defendants in their individual capacities. All parties are of Eddystone.
“On Aug. 10, 2020 at a regularly-scheduled Eddystone Borough Council meeting, plaintiff Michael Knowles, a member of the Borough Civil Service Commission, was removed from the Commission without explanation. On Sept. 14, 2020, at a regularly-scheduled Eddystone Borough Council meeting which was broadcast and/or streamed on the Internet live and later published and maintained on Facebook and the Eddystone Borough website, a discussion took place regarding Knowles’ removal from the Civil Service Commission,” the suit said.
“Defendants in their official capacities as elected officials of Eddystone Borough and as individuals, falsely recklessly and/or intentionally with malice stated publicly at the Sept. 14, 2020 meeting that Knowles is a convicted felon with a felony criminal record and a problem with police. Defendant Karen Reeves also stated, ‘He paid to get it expunged. We have the original records. When the Borough Solicitor attempted to explain that he has not seen any record of Knowles having a criminal record, defendant Allen Reeves stated, ‘He most certainly does!”
According to the complaint, Knowles is not a convicted felon, does not have a felony criminal record nor has never been charged with a felony criminal offense, and does not have a problem with police. The complaint further denied that Knowles has a felony criminal record, nor was any record ever expunged.
“Plaintiffs have been gravely hurt by the injury defendants caused to Knowles’ good name, fame and reputation, and plaintiffs have been brought into disgrace and disrepute among their neighbors and diverse other persons who, ever since the speaking and publication of the false scandalous and defamatory words by defendants, have suspected him of committing larceny and believed him to be deserving of punishment and have refused to associate with him,” the suit states.
“The defamatory statements of felony criminal offenses are considered defamatory per se and as such compensatory damages must be awarded to plaintiffs. Defendants published and re-published the false statements of Knowles’ criminal record at the public meeting on Sept. 14, 2020 and defendants continue to publish the false statements over the Internet by keeping the recording of the public meeting available to the public on the borough website, Facebook and YouTube. The false statements have grievously fractured plaintiffs’ standing in the community. The false statements constitute libel per se, as they are false and impute felony criminal conduct to Knowles, injuring his reputation.”
The defendants filed an answer and new matter in the action on Sept. 29, 2021.
“It is admitted that there was a discussion to qualification of plaintiff Knowles to serve on the Civil Service Commission. It is denied that the ‘transcript’ attached as Exhibit ‘A’ to the complaint is a true and accurate transcription of the entire meeting and the entire comments made by individuals regarding plaintiff’s appointment to the Civil Service Commission,” the answer stated.
“By way of further response, the comments were made in the scope and course of a public meeting and pertained to a matter of public concern and within the course of the official duties of defendants Mayor Allen Reeves and Councilperson Karen Reeves.”
In new matter, the defendants added that the comments were not defamatory.
“The comments alleged are/were believed to be true by defendants Allen Reeves and Councilperson Karen Reeves. The comments were made at a public council meeting and made in the scope and course of duties of the mayor and councilperson. The comments were not motivated by malice or ill-will. Defendants are entitled to immunity under the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. Defendants Mayor Allen Reeves and Councilperson Karen Reeves are high public officials as elected representatives of the Borough of Eddystone. The comments were made in the scope and course of performing elected duties during a council meeting,” the answer continued.
“Defendants are entitled to high public official privilege/immunity. There was no actual malice. The complaint fails to assert special harm or damages, fails to properly assert a claim for damages, fails to support a claim for defamation per se. The claim falls outside the scope of any statute of limitations. The defendants are entitled to immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act and no applicable exception to immunity exists. The defendants fail to establish damages applicable under the Tort Claims Act. Punitive damages are not permissible against defendants.”
The defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on Nov. 2, 2021, arguing the presiding judge should dismiss the case.
“Plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed where the pleadings, accepted in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, demonstrate that defendants are entitled to immunity as a matter of law. Additionally, there IS no claim for loss of consortium and thus any claim alleged by Julie Knowles must also be dismissed as a matter of law. There are no allegations that any statements were made about Julie Knowles and thus she presents no valid legal claim for defamation,” the motion stated.
“A new matter was filed against plaintiff on Sept. 29, 2021, asserting defenses, including immunities, and plaintiff failed to respond. The arguments asserted the defendants’ memorandum of law are hereby incorporated herein by reference as if set forth fully at length. Wherefore, defendants, respectfully request that plaintiffs’ complaint be dismissed with prejudice.”
In a Nov. 30, 2021 reply to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiffs contended that the defendants’ statements were indeed defamatory.
“The primary evidence in this case is recorded. A jury can evaluate the recording and the conduct the Reeves defendants put on display. The fact that it occurred at a Borough Council meeting is not dispositive. Specifically, defendant Allen T. Reeves, Jr. had no vote or policy-making function at the meeting. Defendant Allen T. Reeves, Jr. does not vote to appoint or remove private citizens of the Borough volunteering their time to serve on Borough committees, yet his behavior and defamatory statements persisted completely unhinged,” according to the plaintiffs’ reply.
“The couple defendants completely ignore the Borough solicitor, double-down on their position, and claim to have original records. The Reeves defendants exhibit a reckless tag-team effort to attack and destroy plaintiffs’ reputation under the guise of their elected positions. As such, the case law instructs courts to pause and consider the facts of record, the relationship the defamatory statements have to a legitimate governmental concern, and whether they are so ‘closely related’, to the performance of the defendants’ official duty or must the privilege be limited. In addition, defendants’ absolute immunity defense does not disappear. Defendants may raise it again at a motion for summary judgment.”
UPDATE
However, Delaware County Court of Common Pleas Judge Barry C. Dozor denied the motion on April 8.
“Upon consideration of defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and plaintiffs’ response thereto, it is hereby ordered that defendants’ motion is denied,” Dozor said.
For a count of defamation (through libel and libel per se), the plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $50,000 for special compensatory and punitive damages, plus interest and reasonable attorney fees as required by law.
The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph V. Catania in Media.
The defendants are represented by Scott C. Gottel of Holsten Associates, also in Media.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2021-007258
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com