Renita HILL, an individual, Appellant v. William Henry COSBY, Jr., an individual, also known as Bill Cosby
No. 16-1362
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued October 7, 2016 (Filed: December 14, 2016)
169
Second, contrary to the Defendant‘s claims otherwise, our decision in Asbestos Products does not dictate a different conclusion. In that case, we affirmed the District Court‘s dismissal of twelve cases for the Plaintiffs’ non-compliance with an administrative order and indicated that our review of a dismissal should be “more measured” when a plaintiff is given “an opportunity to present arguments against dismissal.”13 Nonetheless, in affirming the District Court‘s dismissal with prejudice, “we ha[d] little difficulty concluding that the District Court considered and weighed the [Poulis] factors” because, “[w]hile [the District Court] did not explicitly weigh all the factors,” it “clearly considered” their appliсability.14 Unlike in Asbestos Products, where the district court had previously “discuss[ed] the Poulis factors” and the parties “addressed them fully in their briefs,” we have no basis to infer that the District Court considered their applicability here.15
this case to the trial court for further proceedings.16
IV.
Accordingly, because it was an abuse of discretion for the District Court to dismiss Cressman‘s complaint without considering the Poulis factors, we will vacate the District Court‘s dismissal order and remand
Angela C. Agrusa, Esq. (Argued), Liner, 1100 Glendоn Avenue, 14th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90024, Brian C. Bevan, Esq., Efrem M. Grail, Esq., The Grail Law Firm, 436 Seventh Avenue, Koppers Building, 30th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Marshall M. Searey, III, Esq., Christopher Tayback, Esq., Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
BEFORE: SHWARTZ, COWEN, and ROTH, Circuit Judges
OPINION *
COWEN, Circuit Judge
Plaintiff Renita Hill appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granting Defendant William H. Cosby, Jr.‘s motion to dismiss her complaint pursuant to
I.
According to Hill‘s complaint, Cosby—“an internationally known comedian, actor and author” (A45)1—drugged and sexually assaulted her. Specifically, the alleged abuse began in (approximately) 1983, when she was a sixteen-year-old high school student recruited by Cosby to co-host a children‘s television program. Cosby presented himself as Hill‘s mentor and paid for her college tuition. The alleged abuse ended around 1987, after she had complеted her second year in college (at which time Hill cut off any contact with Cosby, and he stopped paying her tuition). Hill claimed that Cosby would meet her in his hotel room and give her a drink containing drugs that affected her consciousness, memory, and perception (and when she indicated that she did not want to drink, Cosby would threaten to terminate “his purported tutelage” (A49)). “While she was in this semi-conscious or unconscious state, Renita was sexually assaulted by Defendant Cosby.” (Id.).
Hill allеgedly did not come forward at the time of the abuse because she was too intimidated and afraid to do so. While “Cosby was extremely powerful, wealthy and influential in status,” Hill “was young, impressionable, and seemingly powerless.” (Id.) She also did not know that other women had allegedly suffered similar abuse. For the next twenty years, Hill maintained her silence. In 2005, Andrea Constand claimed that Cosby had drugged and sexually assaulted her. In the civil lawsuit she filed against Cosby, Constand named thirteen other allegеd victims, and, before her case was settled, a number of these women had come forward with their own accusations. On or about November 13, 2014, Barbara Bowmen “penned an op-ed in the Washington Post titled ‘Bill Cosby raped me. Why did it take 30 years for people to believe my story?‘” (A50.) More accusers then came forward.
Emboldened by these women‘s example, Hill decided to share her own story. On November 20, 2014, she was interviewed by Ralph Ianotti, a reporter with KDKA. “In the interview, Rеnita revealed much of the above-mentioned fact pattern and explained that she felt compelled to come forward after hearing Cosby‘s [sic] criticize the other woman who came forward.” (A51.)
According to Hill, Cosby retaliated against her and the other abuse victims by publishing statements designed to bring into question their honesty and motivations. Hill highlighted three such state
According to Singer:
The new, never-before-heard claims from women who have come forward in the past two weeks with unsubstantiated, fantastical stories about things they sаy occurred 30, 40, or even 50 years ago have escalated far past the point of absurdity.
These brand new claims about alleged decades-old events are becoming increasingly ridiculous and it is completely illogical that so many people would have said nothing, done nothing, and made no reports to law enforcement or asserted civil claims if they thought they had been assaulted over a span of so many years.
Lawsuits are filed against people in the public eye every day. There has never been a shortage of lawyers willing to represent people with claims against rich, powerful men, so it makes no sense that not one of these new women who just came forward for the first time now ever asserted a legal claim back at the time they allege they had been sexually assaulted.
This situation is an unprecedented example of the media‘s breakneck rush to run stories without any corroborаtion or adherence to traditional journalistic standards. Over and over again, we have refuted these new unsubstantiated stories with documentary evidence, only to have a new uncorroborated story crop out of the woodwork. When will it end? It is long past time for this media vilification of Mr. Cosby to stop.
(A51-A52.)
In her complaint, Hill focused on the following excerpt from Cosby‘s Florida Today interview:
I know people are tired of me not saying anything, but a guy doesn‘t have to answer to innuendos. Peoрle should fact-check. People shouldn‘t have to go through that and shouldn‘t answer to innuendos.
(A52.) Cosby provided the District Court with the Florida Today Statement in its entirety:
So today I was informed of this radio station that is offering money for people to stand up and heckle in order to collect prizes and money.
The thing is, these people are prodding and pushing people and asking people to have a frat house mentality. Now suppose someone brings a weapon or decided to do more foolishness. There will be announcements made and the stations made some disclaimers, but what if people don‘t listen to what they said and they entice violence. That‘s not good for anyone.
When you go to a civil rights march or something like that, at least there are meetings and some organization to it and people understand how to behave. There may be people coming to the show that don‘t know exactly what to do; there is no organization to it all.
I know people are tired of me not saying anything, but a guy doesn‘t have to answer to innuendos. People should fact-check. People shouldn‘t have to go
through that and shouldn‘t answer to innuendos.
(SA2 (emphasis omitted) (citing A52).)
Hill alleged that Camille Cosby questioned the victims’ honesty by stating that “[T]here appears to be no vetting of my husband‘s accusers before stories are published or aired.” (A53.) “In an apparent attempt to cast further doubt on the honestly [sic] of Defendant Cosby‘s accusers, Camille Cosby also compared the accusatiоns to alleged rape accusations at the University of Virginia, which eventually were proven to have been fabricated.” (Id.) According to Cosby, his wife stated the following:
I met my husband, Bill Cosby, in 1963, and we were married in 1964. The man I met, and fell in love with, and whom I continue to love, is the man you all knew through his work. He is a kind man, a generous man, a funny man, and a wonderful husband, father and friend. He is the man you thought you knew.
A different man has been portrayed in the media over the last two months. It is the portrait of a man I do not know. It is also a portrait painted by individuals and organizations whom many in the media have given a pass. There appears to be no vetting of my husband‘s accusers before stories are published or aired. An accusation is published, and immediately goes viral.
We all followed the story of the article in “Rolling Stone” concerning allegations of rape at the University of Virginia. The story was heartbreaking, but ultimately appears to be proved to be untrue. Many in the media were quick to link that story to stоries about my husband—until that story unwound.
(SA2-SA3 (emphasis omitted) (citing A52-A53).)
Hill filed a civil action against Cosby in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. She asserted three claims: (1) defamation/defamation per se; (2) false light; and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress (or “IIED“). Cosby removed the action to the District Court on diversity grounds, and he moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.2
The District Court granted Cosby‘s motion and dismissed Hill‘s complaint with prejudice. See Hill v. Cosby, 15CV1658, 2016 WL 491728 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 9, 2016).
II.
The District Court did not commit reversible error by granting Cosby‘s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).3 We begin with Hill‘s defamation claim and, specifically, the Singer Statement. Assuming that a reasonable recipient could read the3
“[A]lthough a defamation suit has profound First Amendment implications, it is fundamentally a statе cause of action.” Tucker v. Fischbein, 237 F.3d 275, 281 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting McDowell v. Paiewonsky, 769 F.2d 942, 945 (3d Cir. 1985)). Under Pennsylvania law,4 the plaintiff must show, inter alia, “[t]he defamatory character of the communication.”
“Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.” Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339-40 (1974) (footnote omitted); see also, e.g., U.S. Healthcare, Inc. v. Blue Cross of Greater Philadelphia, 898 F.2d 914, 927 n.13 (3d Cir. 1990) (characterizing Gertz reasoning as dictum but recognizing that it is regularly cited). Statements that provide the facts on which the opinion-holder bases his or her opinion, known as “pure” opinions, are not action
Although there may be no such thing as a false opinion, an opinion which is unfounded reveals its lack of merit when the opinion-holder discloses the factual basis for the idea. If the disclosed facts are true and the opinion is defamatory, a listener may choose to accept or reject it on the basis of an independent evaluation of the facts. However, if an opinion is stated in a manner that implies that it draws upon unstated facts for its basis, the listener is unable to make an evaluation of the soundness of the opinion. In such circumstances, if the underlying facts are false, the Constitution does not protect the opinion. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 566A.
Redco, 758 F.2d at 972; see also, e.g., Remick, 238 F.3d at 261 (“In Pennsylvania, an opinion cannot be defamatory unless it ‘may reasonably be understood to imply the existence of undisclosed defamatory facts justifying the opinion.‘” (quoting Baker v. Lafayette Coll., 516 Pa. 291, 532 A.2d 399, 402 (1987))); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 566 cmt. (b).
While Hill contends that the Singer Statement implied that she was a liar (and an extortionist), Cosby insists that this response by an attorney to serious public accusations of wrongdoing made against his client in the midst of a heated public dispute cоuld not reasonably be understood to imply the existence of any defamatory facts. We assume that a reasonable recipient could read the Singer Statement as proffering an opinion—based on underlying facts—that Hill lied. Singer nevertheless disclosed the factual basis for his opinion.5
“[E]ven if Singer‘s Statement does imply Ms. Hill is a liar, it is still not actionable because it includes the facts supporting that implication.” (Appellee‘s Brief at 18 (citing Redco, 758 F.2d at 972).) Responding to a mediа firestorm in which several women (including Hill) had made public accusations of serious wrongdoing against Cosby, Singer explained on his client‘s behalf why he believed these accusations were nothing but lies: (1) the alleged acts of abuse “occurred 30, 40, or even 50 years ago;” (2) “it is completely illogical that so many people would have said nothing, done nothing, and made no reports to law enforcement or asserted civil claims if they thought they had been assaulted over a span of so many years;” and (3) “[l]awsuits are filed against people in the public eye every day,” and “[t]here has never been a shortage of lawyers willing to represent people with claims against rich, powerful men, so it makes no sense
We further conclude that no reasonаble recipient could read Cosby‘s Florida Today Statement as implying the existence of undisclosed defamatory facts. Cosby criticized a radio station‘s attempt to get “people to stand up and heckle in order to collect prizes and money,” questioning whether thereby encouraging “people to have a frat house mentality” could lead to violence. (SA2.) While he arguably characterized the accusations against him as “innuendos,” Cosby did so in order to explain why he refused to offer any response of his own to these innuendos—and then invited the recipient to conduct his or her own investigation. As the District Court aptly explained, asking the public to investigate and draw its own conclusions “is a far cry from labelling Plaintiff (and the other women who have made similar public assertions) as liars or extortionists.” Hill, 2016 WL 491728, at *6; see also, e.g., Purcell v. Ewing, 560 F.Supp.2d 337, 342 (M.D. Pa. 2008) (“The title of the posting (‘Look at the pictures‘) and its opening sentence (‘If one looks at the photos‘) invite readers to evaluate the photograph and form their own conclusions.“).
Similarly, we agree with the District Court that the Camille Cosby Statement did not constitute actionable defamation. A defamation plaintiff bears the6
According to Hill, the three statements, when combined together, “demonstrate their defamatory nature based upon undisclosed, false facts.” (Appellant‘s Brief at 19 (emphasis omitted).) We do not agree. Insofar as each statement (which was made by different people at different times) was not capable of a defamatory meaning, the sum total of these statements likewise did not rise to the level of actionable defamation.
Finally, the District Court appropriately disposed of Hill‘s non-defamation causes of action. “Plaintiff agrees with the court below that Pennsylvania courts apply the same analysis for both defamation and false light.” (Id. at 23, 110 S.Ct. 2695.) Thus, because this Court has determined that none of the statements were defamatory in nature, her false light claim fails. Hill further acknowledges that “Pennsylvania has yet to uphold such an IIED claim in a defamation context.” (Id. at 29, 110 S.Ct. 2695.) Even if we were inclined to agree with Hill that an IIED claim could be based on allegedly defamatory language, we refuse to allow such a novel claim to go forward “after concluding as a matter of law that the language itself is not defamatory.”7 Hill, 2016 WL 491728, at *9.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court‘s order granting Cosby‘s motion to dismiss.