Balletta v. Spadoni
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 178
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellants sue for defamation and constitutional injury based on a 2008 newspaper article about their attempted sheriffs sale bids.
- Article quoted officials alleging Appellants’ potential anarchist and anti-government associations and illicit use of ‘paper money’ bids.
- Appellants claim statements caused injury to reputation and various harms, including threats and lost opportunities.
- Trial court sustained preliminary objections: no monetary constitutional tort; government-immunity for county defendants; statements not actionable; and derivative loss of consortium dismissed.
- Appellants appealed arguing constitutional self-execution, lack of immunity, sufficiency of defamation claims, right to amend, and loss of consortium.
- Appellate court affirms, holding no monetary damages under Article I, Sec. 1; county offices immune; statements not actionable as defamation; denial of leave to amend; loss of consortium properly dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutional defamation action exists | Balletta/Proetto argue constitutional tort for defamation exists | Appellees contend no monetary action under Article I, Sec. 1 | No direct monetary constitutional defamation action exists |
| Immunity of county offices | County offices should not shield from defamation suit | Tort Claims Act immunizes counties for such claims | County offices immune; dismissal proper |
| Defamation claims against individuals (Ruberry/Spadoni) | Alleged statements defamatory; immunity cured by exception | Statements non-actionable as opinion or within scope of duties with immunity | Immunity not entitling dismissal; statements not actionable as a matter of law |
| Leave to amend | Curative amendment could remedy pleading defects | Amendment futile given inherent defects | No abuse of discretion; amendment denied |
| Loss of consortium | Derivative claim should survive with defamation claim | Derivative claim fails without underlying defamation | Loss of consortium claims properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sprague v. Walter, 518 Pa. 425, 543 A.2d 1078 (Pa. 1988) (recognizes state constitutional redress for reputation)
- Hatchard v. Westinghouse Broad. Co., 516 Pa. 184, 532 A.2d 346 (Pa. 1987) (reputation as fundamental right; due process)
- Jones v. City of Phila., 890 A.2d 1188 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (no monetary damages for state constitutional rights under Jones)
- R.H.S. v. Allegheny Cnty. Dep’t of Human Servs., 936 A.2d 1230 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (rejects monetary damages for state constitutional rights)
- MacElree v. Phila. Newspapers, Inc., 544 Pa. 117, 674 A.2d 1050 (Pa. 1996) (defamation dismissal improper where facts show defamation capacity)
- Rybas v. Wapner, 311 Pa. Super. 50, 457 A.2d 108 (Pa. Super. 1983) (statements of political ideology not defamatory per se)
- Alston v. PW-Philadelphia Weekly, 980 A.2d 215 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (opinion-based statements may be nonactionable depending on disclosed facts)
- Petula v. Mellody, 138 Pa.Cmwlth. 411, 588 A.2d 103 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (gatekeeping on capability of defamatory meaning)
- Feldman v. Lafayette Green Condo. Ass’n, 806 A.2d 497 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (defamation dismissal where statements are opinion-based on disclosed facts)