ALLENTOWN – A federal judge has approved the dismissal of a defendant from a lawsuit against the Reading Recreation Commission claiming that it failed to stop abuse of a man’s young daughter by a now-incarcerated ex-employee.
Jane Doe (a minor child by and through her father and next friend, John Doe) first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 29 versus Reading Recreation Commission and its Executive Director Daphne E. Klahr, in her official and individual capacity. All parties are of Reading.
“On Dec. 10, 2019, Detective Heather P. Calabria, a County Detective with the Berks County District Attorney’s Office, was detailed to investigate allegations of suspected child abuse, regarding concerns of interactions between a 20-year-old male employee of the 11th and Pike Street Recreational Center, located at 1185 Pike Street, Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania, and an 11-year-old female child, the plaintiff, Jane Doe, which was occurring at the Recreation Center,” the suit said.
“On Jan. 14, 2020, Austin Lewis Quigg was interviewed by Berks County detectives and denied any inappropriate actions between him and Doe.”
The plaintiff added that three days later, on Jan. 17, 2020, Quigg was interviewed again and admitted to the investigating detective that he exchanged nude photographs between him and Doe, via texting and various social media platforms, including Instagram.
“Quigg also told the detective that he touched Doe on her buttocks outside her clothing and that she was grabbing his penis outside of his clothing. A forensic examination of Quigg’s mobile device resulted in the detective locating numerous nude photographs of Doe’s vagina and breasts. Quigg also admitted that there were two other occasions he took photographs of his genitals and the genitals of Doe, at the Schlegel Pool, another City of Reading facility located at 299 North Carroll Street, Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania,” the suit stated.
“Quigg was ultimately found to be in possession of more than 68 photographs of the 11-year-old child plaintiff, including photographs of her vagina and breasts, and said photographs constitute child pornography as a matter of law. Even after Quigg was interviewed by the detective on Jan. 14, 2020, and again on Jan. 17, 2020, Quigg contacted the 11-year-old child plaintiff again and exchanged additional nude photographs and videos of them touching their genitals with his personal laptop. Quigg also took pictures of his penis and recorded an Instagram video of himself masturbating his penis and sent it to the 11-year-old child plaintiff.”
Quigg is now incarcerated at the Berks County Prison in Leesport, after being charged with possession of child pornography and various other offenses and ultimately pleading guilty to them.
Through its counsel, the Reading Recreation Commission motioned to dismiss the case on Dec. 6 for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Subsequent to an amended complaint being filed on Dec. 22, the Reading Recreation Commission filed a second dismissal motion in the case, alleging the plaintiff had not shown they were state actors.
“In their amended complaint, plaintiff brought claims against the defendant, Reading Recreation Commission, alleging that as a state actor, it violated the minor plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment through 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and Title IX, 20 U.S.C.A. Section 1681(a)-(c) when one of its employees, Austin Quigg, who was 20 years old, engaged Jane Doe, the minor plaintiff, who was 11 years old, in sexual activities. Plaintiffs allege that the defendant Reading Recreation Commission, through its Executive Director, Daphne E. Klahr, created an unsafe environment for the minor plaintiff by failing to have policies in place to detect and remove unsafe activities such as the one that occurred with Austin Quigg and the minor plaintiff,” the second dismissal motion stated.
“In order to hold the defendant Reading Recreation Commission liable to the plaintiff under Section 1983 and Title IX, Plaintiffs must begin by alleging facts to show that the defendants were state actors, and not merely make bald allegations or legal conclusions that are unsupported by facts. Here, plaintiffs allege that the defendant, Reading Recreation Commission, ‘is a state actor’, but has not alleged facts to show that it was created by legislation or executive order, but rather, incorporated through the filing of Article of Incorporation and has organizational standards dictated by by-laws. Plaintiff have also alleged that the corporate by-laws, and not legislation or executive order, set forth the parameters of responsibility for its Executive Director, Daphne E. Klahr. Plaintiffs have not alleged that Ms. Klahr is a public official.”
In a Jan. 25 response opposing the dismissal motion, plaintiff counsel stated that they had in fact shown that the defendants are state actors.
“The defendant, Reading Recreation Commission, is a Pennsylvania domestic nonprofit corporation that is furthermore a de facto partnership between the City of Reading and the Reading School District. Plaintiffs thereafter alleged that Bill No. 33-2011 authorized the Mayor of the City of Reading to execute an Agreement of Cooperation between the City of Reading and The Reading School District ‘for the joint support of a recreational and educational program and creation of the Reading Recreation Commission,” per the response brief.
“Plaintiffs next aver that an appropriate resolution was passed by officials of the Reading School District authorizing the Reading School District to enter into the aforesaid agreement of cooperation with the City of Reading to form the Reading Recreation Commission, defendant to organize, manage and supervise recreational and educational programs with a primary focus and emphasis on programs for youth, within the political boundaries of the City and the aforesaid school district.”
According to plaintiff counsel, “the City of Reading, a state actor, and the Reading School District, a state actor, thus formed a de facto partnership, to wit, the Reading Recreation Commission, defendant, another state actor, which is managed, controlled and governed by appointees of the City of Reading and the Reading School District, both state actors.”
On Feb. 2, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Joseph F. Leeson concurred with the plaintiff and found that the recreation is a state actor.
“Defendants argue that plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to show that defendants are state actors. In rendering a decision on a motion to dismiss, this Court must ‘accept all factual allegations as true [and] construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.’ The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court finds that the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts that defendants are state actors,” Leeson said.
In addition, Leeson ruled that within 14 days of the date of his order, by Feb. 16, the defendants were to file an answer to the first amended complaint.
UPDATE
Counsel for the parties filed a stipulation on Aug. 15, dismissing Klahr from the case.
“The parties, through counsel, by signing below, hereby stipulate and agree to dismiss with prejudice Daphne E. Klahr, Executive Director of the Reading Recreation Commission, in her official and individual capacities, and further stipulate and agree that the case caption shall be revised to delete the name of Daphne E. Klahr, Executive Director of the Reading Recreation Commission, in her official and individual capacities, as of the date of the order approving the parties’ stipulation,” the joint stipulation read.
Leeson granted the order the following day in an order of his own.
“Upon consideration of the parties’ stipulation for dismissal as to defendant Daphne Klahr and of Klahr’s motion to amend the caption to reflect her dismissal, it is hereby ordered that: 1) The parties’ stipulation of dismissal is granted. All claims against defendant Daphne Klahr, in her official and individual capacities, are dismissed with prejudice. 2) Klahr’s motion to amend the caption is granted in part. The Clerk of Court shall mark Klahr terminated as a defendant in the above-captioned action. The parties are directed to use the above caption, which does not include Klahr, in any future filings. To the extent counsel seeks to eliminate any reference to Klahr’s name on the docket, the request is denied,” Leeson said.
For counts of violating the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Section 1983 and Title IX, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages in an amount proved at trial, for exemplary and punitive damages against the defendants for costs of suit therein, including plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees and for such other and further relief as the Honorable Court deems appropriate.
The plaintiff is represented by David R. Dautrich Sr. in Reading.
The defendant is represented by Sharon M. O’Donnell of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, in Camp Hill.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:21-cv-04851
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com