Dempsey v. Bucknell University
76 F. Supp. 3d 565
M.D. Penn.2015Background
- In Sept. 2010 Bucknell public safety officers investigated allegations by Kelly Stefanowicz that Reed Dempsey sexually assaulted her; she gave written and recorded statements and police had photographs and text messages from Dempsey apologizing.
- Dempsey provided witness names and several witnesses gave statements portraying pre- or post-incident “play-fighting,” but none described the time the two were alone in Dempsey’s room.
- Criminal charges were filed (initially simple assault, harassment, disorderly conduct; later false imprisonment and indecent assault), an internal Bucknell hearing followed (both students found responsible only for disorderly conduct), and criminal charges were later withdrawn; Dempsey graduated in 2013.
- Attorney Anthony Voci represented Stefanowicz and made advocacy communications to University officials (letters/emails/teleconference) and two quoted statements to a local reporter; Voci’s campus communications were held to be privileged but at least one newspaper quote was not.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on multiple claims; the court granted summary judgment on Counts I (false arrest), II (malicious prosecution), III (supervisory liability), IV (false imprisonment), VIII (fraud), X (breach of contract), XIV (tortious interference), and XVI (IIED), but denied summary judgment on Count VII (defamation) as to Voci’s newspaper statement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest (§1983) | Officers omitted exculpatory witness statements and recklessly presented a misleading affidavit, so no probable cause | Probable cause existed from victim statements, photos, corroborating roommate statement, and texts; omissions did not negate probable cause | Summary judgment for defendants; probable cause existed as matter of law |
| Malicious prosecution | Proceedings initiated without probable cause | Probable cause existed when charges filed | Summary judgment for defendants; claim fails (no absence of probable cause) |
| Supervisory / bystander liability | University officials ratified or failed to stop violation | Underlying §1983 claims fail, so no supervisory liability | Summary judgment for defendants |
| False imprisonment (PA law) | Arrest and detention were unlawful due to lack of probable cause | Probable cause existed | Summary judgment for defendants |
| Defamation (Voci) — letters/emails/teleconf. | Voci published defamatory statements to University and others | Communications were privileged as judicially pertinent advocacy | Letters/emails/teleconference privileged (absolute) — no liability |
| Defamation (Voci) — newspaper quotes | Voci told reporter Dempsey was the victim’s “attacker”; this was defamatory per se | Voci: either did not make the quote or it was true/justifiable; privilege defense inapplicable to press statements | Denied summary judgment — one quoted newspaper statement survives for jury to decide truth/malice |
| Fraud (Ulmer) | Ulmer told Dempsey victim wasn’t pressing charges; fraudulent misrepresentation | Statement was true or not shown to be false; plaintiff offered no evidentiary support | Summary judgment for defendants — plaintiff failed to show a genuine dispute |
| Breach of contract (student handbook) | Bucknell failed to produce requested investigatory materials required by handbook and harmed hearing rights | University produced adequate materials; plaintiff shows no provable damages | Summary judgment for defendants — no evidence of damages |
| Tortious interference (Voci) | Voci’s communications interfered with Dempsey’s contract/rights at Bucknell | Communications were privileged (judicial privilege) and proper advocacy | Summary judgment for Voci — privilege bars claim |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress | (asserted) severe emotional harm from defendants’ conduct | Plaintiff failed to show physical injury or medical evidence as required by PA law | Summary judgment for defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burdens)
- Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781 (material omissions and reckless disregard in warrant affidavits)
- Sherwood v. Mulvihill, 113 F.3d 396 (omissions and reconstructing affidavits for probable-cause analysis)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (probable cause and qualified immunity standard)
- Post v. Mendel, 507 A.2d 351 (absolute privilege for communications pertinent to judicial proceedings)
- Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497 (elements of malicious prosecution under §1983)
- Groman v. Township of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628 (when probable cause may be decided as matter of law)