2:21-cv-05627
E.D. Pa.Jun 27, 2022Background
- Bani Kaur Bedi, a 21‑year‑old recent graduate who attended a University of Washington class, alleges a guest lecturer, Bryan Morales (approx. 50), solicited a meeting promising job connections and then engaged in sexualized, nonconsensual conduct at a California dinner on Sept. 26, 2021 (staring, stroking her thigh, and a prolonged hug pressing against her breasts).
- A security guard witnessed the conduct and asked them to leave; Bedi claims permanent mental trauma and physical manifestations (humiliation, anxiety, insomnia, etc.).
- Morales sued Bedi for defamation and tortious interference based on statements she allegedly made in late Sept.–Oct. 2021; Bedi filed counterclaims for assault, battery (under California law), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) (under Pennsylvania law).
- Morales moved to dismiss Bedi’s counterclaims and to strike several affirmative defenses.
- The court denied dismissal as to assault and battery (finding Bedi plausibly pleaded the elements under California law), granted dismissal of the IIED claim (finding alleged conduct not sufficiently "outrageous" under Pennsylvania law), and struck Bedi’s statute‑of‑limitations affirmative defense while permitting other defenses to proceed to discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assault and battery (California law) | Bedi: facts (sexual conversation, staring, thigh‑stroking, prolonged hug) satisfy assault and battery elements | Morales: allegations insufficient to state assault/battery | Denied dismissal — assault and battery adequately pleaded |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress (Pennsylvania law) | Bedi: Morales’s conduct caused severe emotional distress | Morales: conduct not extreme/outrageous enough for IIED | Granted dismissal — IIED not pleaded (no blatant abhorrent or retaliatory conduct) |
| Choice of law for claims | Bedi conceded CA law for assault/battery; applied PA law for IIED | Morales urged application of CA for some issues but did not contest PA for IIED | Court applied California law to assault/battery (injury occurred in CA) and Pennsylvania law to IIED (no true conflict) |
| Motion to strike affirmative defenses | Morales: move to strike multiple defenses including statute of limitations | Bedi: asserted defenses (failure to state, SOL, no damages, no punitive) | Struck statute‑of‑limitations defense (no factual/legal support); other defenses preserved for discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- So v. Shin, 212 Cal. App. 4th 652 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (defines California assault and battery elements)
- Hoy v. Angelone, 720 A.2d 745 (Pa. 1998) (elements and high outrage standard for IIED in Pennsylvania)
- Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469 (3d Cir. 1990) (sexual harassment alone generally insufficient for IIED; retaliation by a power holder can elevate conduct)
- Smith v. RB Distribution, Inc., 515 F. Supp. 3d 311 (E.D. Pa. 2021) (discussion of IIED and community standards for outrageousness)
- Oakwood Lab'ys LLC v. Thanoo, 999 F.3d 892 (3d Cir. 2021) (articulates the Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard applied by the court)