Ian Wesley Bennett v. Katerina Lundh
0364244
Va. Ct. App.Jun 17, 2025Background
- Ian Wesley Bennett filed a defamation claim against former colleague Katerina Lundh after being removed from a work contract due to allegedly false rumors stemming from a work trip.
- At the heart of the claim: Bennett alleged that defamatory statements by Lundh (regarding his conduct with her) were the source of his termination, but he did not plead the exact words spoken or written by Lundh.
- The trial court ordered Bennett to file a bill of particulars detailing the specific defamatory statements, their speaker, dates, and recipients—he failed to do so.
- Lundh demurred, arguing the complaint was deficient for failing to allege the exact words as required under Virginia law.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed Bennett’s complaint with prejudice for failing to meet the heightened-pleading standard for defamation in Virginia.
- Bennett appealed, arguing he was entitled to discovery to obtain the exact language before dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff must plead the exact words of alleged defamation ("in haec verba") | Bennett argued that discovery should be allowed to learn Lundh's exact statements before pleading them, or that his inferences about Lundh's role suffice. | Lundh argued that Virginia requires pleading the specific words to allow for demurrer and that Bennett failed to do so even after being ordered to file a bill of particulars. | Court held Virginia's heightened pleading standard requires exact words; dismissal appropriate when not met. |
| Whether dismissal was premature before discovery | Bennett argued he could not plead specifics until after pre-trial discovery. | Lundh argued the rule exists to screen out insufficient claims pre-discovery; plaintiff could have used the six months before dismissal to pursue discovery. | Court held exact-words requirement allows defendants to demur pre-discovery; discovery is not automatic. |
| Adequacy of time given to file bill of particulars | Bennett argued 21 days was not enough time to provide required detail. | Lundh argued there was no abuse of discretion; Bennett had months to gather facts before dismissal. | Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s timetable. |
| Whether inference suffices for pleading source of defamation | Bennett argued it was reasonable to infer Lundh was the source of the defamatory statements. | Lundh argued inference is not an acceptable substitute for pleading exact words. | Court agreed inference alone is insufficient; complaint must state precise language. |
Key Cases Cited
- A.H. v. Church of God in Christ, 297 Va. 604 (pleading facts in light most favorable to plaintiff on demurrer)
- Schaecher v. Bouffault, 290 Va. 83 (de novo review of order sustaining demurrer; actionable "sting" in defamation)
- Fuste v. Riverside Healthcare Ass'n, 265 Va. 127 (exact words requirement in pleading defamation)
- Coward v. Wellmont Health Sys., 295 Va. 351 (inferences in pleadings must be reasonable)
- Birchfield v. Fed. Land Bank, 173 Va. 200 (need for exact words; bill of particulars can supplement pleading)