Clausi v. Stuck
74 A.3d 242
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- Clausi is a Northumberland County Commissioner; Boris and Jones are deputy sheriffs.
- In Dec 2009, Clausi allegedly made public statements at a meeting about pornography on Sheriff’s Office computers, which Boris/Jones claimed defamed the Sheriff’s staff.
- Boris and Jones were terminated in January 2010 following the statements.
- Stuck filed a writ of summons (Dec 30, 2009) and a defamation complaint (Jan 13, 2010) on behalf of Boris/Jones and others.
- Boris/Jones later withdrew the defamation claim and amended the complaint to add federal civil rights, wrongful termination, and Whistleblower Act claims; the case remained pending.
- Clausi filed counterclaims in March 2010; preliminary objections led to dismissal of the Dragonetti (wrongful use of civil proceedings) claim, and, later, summary judgment against Clausi on abuse of process; the trial court’s November 2, 2012 order was appealed and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Dragonetti claim was properly dismissed | Clausi argues withdrawal of defamation claim constitutes favorable termination. | Underlying suit not terminated in Clausi’s favor due to amended pending claims. | Dragonetti claim not accrued; termination not in Clausi’s favor; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether summary judgment on abuse of process was proper | Abuse of process evidenced by use of lawsuit to extort apology and gain publicity. | No perversion of process; primary purpose was to obtain monetary damages, not improper motive. | Summary judgment on abuse of process affirmed; no genuine issue of material fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ludmer v. Nernberg, 520 Pa. 218 (Pa. 1989) (Dragonetti accrues only after favorable outcome)
- D’Elia v. Folino, 933 A.2d 117 (Pa.Super.2007) (favorable termination required for Dragonetti act)
- Bannar v. Miller, 701 A.2d 242 (Pa.Super.1997) (withdrawal circumstances affecting termination)
- Lerner v. Lerner, 954 A.2d 1229 (Pa.Super.2008) (abuse of process vs. Dragonetti distinction; improper purpose must be shown)
- Shiner v. Moriarty, 706 A.2d 1228 (Pa.Super.1998) (definition of abuse of process; improper objective not allowed)
- Cowder, 434 Pa.Super. 491, 644 A.2d 188 (Pa.Super.1994) (primary purpose prong of abuse of process)
- Conway v. The Cutler Group, Inc., 57 A.3d 155 (Pa.Super.2012) (standard for reviewing preliminary objections)
- Reeser v. NGK N. Am., Inc., 14 A.3d 896 (Pa.Super.2011) (summary judgment standard where material facts are undisputed)
- Jones v. Levin, 940 A.2d 451 (Pa.Super.2007) (summary judgment framework; weighing evidence)