Reed v. Pray
53 A.3d 134
Pa. Commw. Ct.2012Background
- Reed, former Borough Council member, spearheaded a $262,000 fire truck purchase and sought a $15,000 Borough advance plus a $100,000 sewer fund loan to cover the shortfall.
- Pray and Van Auken opposed the sewer fund loan and questioned legality; Pray reported concerns to local law enforcement in 2006.
- Election Day 2008 allegedly involved statements by Van Auken and Coles that Reed had taken money from the Borough; Arthur Van Auken allegedly made a similar statement in 2009.
- Reed filed a July 31, 2009 complaint alleging defamation by Pray, Van Auken, Coles, and the Borough, plus a punitive damages claim and a claim about a police Timeline document release.
- November 2010: trial court granted summary judgment for Pray, Van Auken, Coles, and Borough; denied Reed’s motion to amend to add two documents.
- Appeals court reversed in part: affirmed summary judgment for Pray and Borough; reversed as to Van Auken, Coles, and Arthur Van Auken; remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defamation by Pray | Pray's May 2006-October 2006 law-enforcement communications were defamatory. | Pray acted with privilege in expressing concerns to authorities. | Summary judgment for Pray upheld (no defamation). |
| Defamation by Martha Van Auken and Julius Coles | Statements at polling places about Reed 'took' funds were defamatory. | Statements were non-defamatory opinion or protected political speech; immunity or context applies. | Reversed; these statements could be defamatory; issues for jury. |
| Defamation by Arthur Van Auken | Arthur Van Auken similarly stated Reed took funds; defamatory. | Statements were political speech; context and truth defenses apply. | Reversed; potential defamation; remand for proceedings. |
| Negligent care of personal property (Timeline) | Borough negligently released the Timeline to media (personal property). | Timeline is police property, not Reed’s personal property; no proof of property loss. | Summary judgment for Borough affirmed (no triable claim). |
| Motion to amend complaint | Should be allowed to add two documents to defamation claims. | Amendment futile; no link to new documents established. | Affirmed; no abuse of discretion; amendment denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Balletta v. Spadoni, 47 A.3d 183 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (defamation threshold and contextual analysis; opinion not per se actionable)
- MacElree v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 544 Pa. 117, 674 A.2d 1050 (Pa. 1996) (statements of misconduct in office can be defamatory; context matters)
- Moore v. Cobb-Nettleton, 889 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Super. 2005) (conditional privilege and defamation standard principles)
- Pawlowski v. Smorto, 403 Pa. Super. 71, 588 A.2d 36 (Pa. Super. 1991) (privilege for communications to law enforcement)
- Lindner v. Mollan, 544 Pa. 487, 677 A.2d 1194 (Pa. 1996) (public official immunity limitations; immunity not absolute in all settings)