HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-00014
e,
N
fT"
r;~
""
1:'1'\
(1,
~1
;;"
:54
:i-~~~\;~
~.:~
C\:--="I
.-'......
\,'']:',;0-
Z
C\::L~
LUll;1
;;J c.\..
"'j
(:)
--
6;
'"
t-;
I"U,",.
'-2('.,
r'.~-
1.-'
t')\:.,
6,
lJJI-'
;~\l.i
IJ"-i',
f"
1.1.
U
<:t")
N
e,
;-s:
<i.L':
, .
v : IN 71/p,
GENERAL . / CUMIJJ?R~,~~/f/' OJ.' COM
MILL ' 1 /) ('OUN" MON p.
.8, INC" .. CIVIL A('77 I Y, PhNN;~~I\S OF
Defelldant :' . ON -_ IA W LV ANIA
IN RE' : No, 99_14 C
OB.IEenO DEFENDA IV/L 71JRM
lVs 1'0 PLAN1"S PRELl
BEFORE IN1'IFF'S C MINAR}'
AND NO 0 HESS alld OL OMPLAIlV1'
prelimin W. this 23rd RDER OF ER, JJ,
IIry ob' dilyo/,^" COUl>
IICcom Yectiolls t 'YlI/rch 19 q1'
!Pllllyi 0 PI . '99 n
llg opillio IIlllti/'f's. ,II er care/, I
11, the Preli...., complllillt . U cOllsider: t'
"'lfIl1ry , IInd fl ll/OIl
o~iections lire d . Or the reason OfDefendallt's
enled. S stated '
IfI the
8ARR Y lJ
, CLI\.R/(
,
Plllillt/ft,
Norlls .
MCGra . GIbSon, Es
4 L'b IV,lJlli(.P. D q.
I el1y I\. '" eit h
Carlisle I' venUe C mlln
A' 1\ 17013
ttorlley fl
RObert G I Or plaimiff'
Shllron A'"~ Janna, Jr E
A1. 'YI. O'D ., 'S
atshall D' . onnell E q,
p" ell ' Jsq
oUl1h Flo nehey W .
100 p' Or 'amer C
1',0 8/f1c Street ' olemllll & G
Ii . Ox 803 oggill
arri b
s Uro I'
0' 1\ 17
Attorne .108-0803
(', )Is for De
-~a.,,' felldant
. /'>>ta,~,<,(, J
.:lUJJ/'7.
.0& . 'P.
, .!
[j Y TlJ
E COUR
1',
;JJ, ~~;:1~1"
tJl,J, ey Olri:~/C I
-.,-' 0, J, ,
BARRY D, CLARK,
PlaintifT
: IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
v,
: CIVil. ACTION -- LAW
GENERAL MILLS,INC.,
Defendant
: No, 99-14 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
BEFORE HESS amI OLER, ,IJ,
OPINION alld ORDER OF COURT
OLER, J., March 23, 1999,
In this civilllction, an individual pluintiff has sued u corporate defendant for false
imprisonment and dethmation as the result of IIn alleged incident in which plaintiff WIlS
detllined by police following a report by Defendant. Prcscntly bcforc the court lire
preliminary objections to thc complnint in the nuture of dcmurrcrs,
Thc mattcr was argucd on March 3, 1999. For thc rellsons stated in this opinion,
Defendant's preliminary objections will bc denied,
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The thcts alleged in Plaintiff's complaint, filed January 4, 1999, may be summarized
as follows, Plaintiff is Barry D, Clark, an individual residing in Cnrlisle, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania. I Defendant is General Mills, Inc., a corporation with its place of
business in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.2
On August 7, 1998, Plaintiff resigned as an employee of Defendant.J At the time,
I Plaintiffs Complaint., paragraph I.
2 Id., paragraph 2.
J Id" paragraph 6,
upon the argument thaI an investignlol'Y detention hy police could I\ot rise to the level ofllilse
imprisonmentY "There was," aCllordlng to Defendant's hrief; "no arrest, no confinclllent,
and no charges brought."\~
With respect to the claim Ihr deliullation, Defendant's demurrer is premised upon
the absencc of a specific dcfamatory statement from the averlllcnts ofthe complaint,lS and
the absence of a sullicient averment of hllrm to the I'lnintiff.16 Defendant's llrgument on
these points is as follows:
Pa, R,C,P. IOI9(a) requires a plaintiff to plead n
statement, made hy the defendant, which he considers to be
defamatory, in a concise and summary fhrm. Plaintiff must
plead that a particulnr communication was defamatory in nature.
The communication must be attributable to the defendant. Here,
Plaintiff has failed to plead facts describing any statement or
speech specifically attributed to any employee of General Mills,
Instead, in Pnrg, II, he claims that one of the officers explained
that there were "concerns about him coming hack to Gencral
Mills, and causing damage, and that is why we pulled you over",
After the officer's discussion was complete, there was no
arrest, no confinement, and no criminal charges filed. Whether
or not a statement is capable of a defamatory meaning is a
question for the court, However, even bcfore such a
determination can be ma::le, the Plaintiff must plead facts
describing some harm resulting from an alleged defamatory
statement. Pennsylvania law requires that such hann to, at least,
be alleged to have "blackened the plaintiffs reputation or to
D Preliminary O~jection5 of Defendant, General Mills, Inc., paragraphs7-9.
14 Defendant's Memorandum of Law atl
15 Preliminary Objcctions of Defendant, Gcneral Mills, Inc., paragraphs 12-13.
16 Jd., paragraph 14.
3
expose him to puhl ic hutred, (;ontcmpt, or ridicule, or to injure
him in his husiness or protession", I"
UUiCJ1SSlillS.
Prelimlnm:v o~ieclioll In natlll'e (!I'dell/lIl'l'('1' -- genel'al, A prclimlltury objection in
tho nIlture of u demurrer should be sustuincd only in cases that cleurly and without doubt tail
to statoa claim upon which I'olief cun be grunted, COIII/ty of Allegheny v, Commonwealth.
507 Pa, 360,372,490 A,2d 402, 408 (1985), In uddition, "u clulm should not be... dismissed
for mere lack ofspociticity." Gal'l'el/ Electronics Corp. v, Commonwealth, 46 Cumberlund
L.J. 256, 260 (1997), ciling Goodrich-Amrurn 2d * 10 17(b): 12, at 256 (1991). Furthermore,
deficiencies of specificity will generally not result in relicI' on preliminary objections where
"the objecting party may be presumed to have at least as much information as docs the
pleader." Borollgh of New ClImberland v, Gates, 47 Cumhorland LJ. 21, 27 (1997); 5
Standard Pennsylv~nia Practice 2d *25:60, at 170 (l993).IR
False imprisonment, The tort offal80 imprisonment is described in Section 35 ofthe
Restatement (Second) of Torts us follows:
An actor is subject to liability to another for false imprisonment
if
(a) he acts intending to confine the other or a third person
within boundaries fixed by the actor, and
(b) his act directly or indirectly results in such a
confinement of the other, and
17 Defendant's Memorandum of Law at4,
IR A deficiency which is so fundamental as to deprive a pleading o/'legal sufficiency
can not be disregarded On the ground that the objecting party is probably aware of the
information or that it could be learned in discovery, Gross v, United Engineers and
ConstrllctOI'S, Inc, , 224 PII. Super, 233,302 A,2d 370, allocallll' I'efl/sed, 302 A.2d 370 (Pa.
1973).
4
(c) the other is conscious of the conl1l1ement or is harmed
by It.l~
The confinement may be caused directly or Indirectly,ifl It mllY consist ofa custodial
status Imposed by legal authorlty.21 The geographical areu of confinement may be
extensive,i2 A specific duration of constraint is not included in the clements ofthe tort.
In the present case, if the ullegatlons of the compluint ure accepted us true, with no
lbrther record huving been developed in the case, und based upon the foregoing authority,
it cannot be sllid thut Pluintifrs claim for talse imprisonment is meritless. Consequently,
Defendant's preliminary objection in the nutlll'e of a demurrer to Plaintiffs claim for false
. imprisonment will be denied,
Defamation, The tort of defamation is described in Seetlon558 of the Restatement
(Second) ofTorts as follows:
. To create liability for detamation there must be:
(a) a false and defamatory statement conccming another;
(b) an unprivileged[2J] publication to a third party;
(c) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of
the publisher; and
19 Restatement (Second) ofTorts *35( I) (1965),
20 Id. *37,
21 Id. *41; see, e,g.. Renk v. Ci(v o.fPilfshurgh, 537 Pa, 68,641 A.2d 289 (1994).
22 "The area within which another is completely confined may be large and need not
be stationary," Comment b, Restatement (Second) of Torts *35 (1965) (example provided
of confinement to state by invalid writ).
2J Privilege, in Pennsylvania, is anuft1I'11latlve detense. I'a, R.C.I', 1030(a), The
effect of' a conditional privilege to denune Is, in general, not considered on preliminary
objections. See Gordon v. Lancaster Osteopathic Hospital, Ass 'n, Inc, , 340 I'a. Super. 253,
489 A.2d 1364 (1985).
5
(d) either actionability of the statement irrespective of
special harm or the existence of speciul harm caused by the
publication?'
Where u dethmutory stutemcnt in the limn of slandel' is not actionable per se,2S
liability is dependent upon "special harm,1\26 inter lilia,
Special harm ,.. is the loss of something having economic
or pecuniary vulue. In its origin, this goes buck to the ancient
conllict of jurisdiction between the royul and the ecclesiastical
courts, in which the lormer ucquired jurisdiction over some
kinds of defamution only because they could be found to have
resulted in "temporal" rather than "spiritual" damuge....
The more modem decisions have shown some tendency
to liberalize the old rule, and to tind pecuniary loss when the
plaintiff hils been deprived of benefit which has a more or less
. indirect financial value to him.... The tendency has been in the
direction of finding an indirect benefit to be sutftcicnt.
Special harm must result from the conduct of a person
other than the delhmer or the one defamed and must be legally
caused by the defamation,27
In the present case, Plaintiffs complaint suggests that an agent of Defendant falsely
and maliciously reported to police that Plaintiff represented a danger to Defendant's
establishment ifhe came within its vicinity, and that as a consequence Plaintiff was deprived
of his freedom for fifteen to twenty minutes by authorities, Although more specificity with
respect to the allegedly defamatory statement would be desirable in the pleading, and
although it is not clear at this stage whether the detention, if it occurred, will be shown to
24 Restatement (Second) of Torts ~558 (1977),
25 See Comment b, Restatement (Second) of Torts ~569 (977).
26 Agriss v, Roadway Express, Inc, , 334 Pa, Super, 295, 483 A.2d 456 (1984).
27 Comment b, Restatement (Second) of Torts ~575(1977).
6
be denied. Wlllel v, PA Medical Calas/rophe Loss FIII/(I, 702 A2d 850 (pa 1997).
Doubt as to the applicable law or clarity of the pleadings is not determinative Lewin v.
SIa/e Bd. Of Medicine, 535 A2d 243 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987). Moreover, the Court's
decision mU8t be based solely on the pleadings, as opposed to facts alleged in briefs or
other outside sources. Bonanni v. Es/on Hauling, Inc., 392 Pa" 248. 140 A"2d 591
(1958)
In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the demurrer, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff does not
state that he wa9 arrested or that charges were filed against him, concluding ,that Plaintiff
has not pled a count for false imprisonment However, false arrest (which Plaintiff has
not plead) and false imprisonment are separate and distinct torts, Being arrested or
charged is not a necessary element of false imprisonment. There is a civil action called
"false arrest." This action sometimes overlaps with that of false imprisonment.
However, the law does distinguish the 111\10" For instance, the statute of limitations for
false arrest is one year, while for false imprisonment. it is two" Gagliardi v, Lynn. 446 Pa.
144,147,285 A2d 109 (1971), In Gagliari, the court distinguished these torts and
discussed their interplay within the facts of that case. See also Gilbert v, Feldi, 842 F,
Supp. 803 (ED. Pa 1993), Plaintiff does not dispute that he has not filed a claim for
false arrest.
Plaintiff's complaint, however. does st<lte a claim for false imprisonment. The
elements of that tort under Pennsylvania law are:
1) The actor intended to confine the other or C\ third person within boundaries
fixed by the actor; <lnd
2) His <lct directly or indirectly reslllts in sllch a confinement of the other; and
3) The other is consciolls of the confinement or is harmed by it
Roe v. Operation Rescuoi, 710 F Supp. 577 (ED Pa 1989) (citing I-Iome v" Farrell. 560
F Supp, 219, 226 (M"D Pa. 1983); Gaglianli v Lynn, 446 Pa 144,148 n2. 285 A2d
109 (1971))" The facts, as pled, meet the elements of this tort In the following way:
Plaintiff contends that Defendant" through anegant hired as security personnel.
instructed other police officer9 to detain Plaintiff, The officers were armed and
numerous. Plaintiff was not free to leave Plaintiff was conscious of his being detained
and suffered humiliation as a result If true, these facts would state a cause of action
under the law. Therefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to deny Defendant's
demurrer as to the false imprisonment count
Defendant also has filed an objection to the gecond count of the Complaint,
which is for defamation" In paragraphf 12 and 13 of the demurrer, Defendant has stated
that the quote In the Complaint is "not capable of defamatory meaning." There is
authority that a demurrer may be sustained if the Plaintiff cannot plead any material facts
upon which the defamation was based. Krochalis v, Insl/rance Company of North
Amer, 629 F" Supp. 1360 (E"D" Pa. 1985) (citing Itr! v. Lewisi, 281 Pa Super, 521. 523,
422 A.2d 591, 592 (1980); Gross v. United Engineers & Constructors, Inc" , 224 Pa"
Super. 233, 235, 302 A2d 370 (1973); [additional cite omitted]). However, Plaintiff has
provided such a statement, and additionally contends that Defendant must have said
something defamatory about Plaintiff to result in his being detained by police,
Pennsylvania has set out the elements of a cause of action for defamation by
statute, The Plaintiff must prove:
1) the defamatory character of the communication;
2) its publication by the defendant;
3) its application to the plaintiff;
4) the understanding by the recipient of its defamatory meaning;
5) the understanding by the recipient of It as Intended to be applied to the
plaintiff;
6) special harm resulting to the plaintiff from its publication;
7) abuse of a conditionally privileged occasion
42 Pa" Cons. Stat. Ann. ~ 8343 In addllion, Pennsylvania recognizes not only spoken
defamatory statements, but even non-verbal acts capable of defamatory meaning, See
Berg v" Consolidated Freightways, IlK, 280 Pa" Super. 495,421 A2d 831 (1980). In
the instant case, Plaintiff has offered a specific verbal statement as well as one implied
through innuendo" In any case, the jury would be the best arbiters of whether a
statement had defamatory meaning. Restatement (Second) of TOlts ~ 617 (b). As
written in the Hestatement: "The meaning of a communication is that which the recipient
correctly, or mistakenly but reasonably, understands that it was intended to express,"
Therefore, while it is understood that Defendant will likely debate whether the averred
statement(s) are capable of defamatory meaning, disposing of that factual question at
this time would not be proper. Moreover, if the allegations in the Complaint are accepted
as true, Plaintiff has stated a claim for defamation. One can imply that Defendant,
through its hired security personnel. said something defamatory about the plaintiff. The
officers would have to understand the defamatory meaning of Defendant's statements
for them to actually pull him over with all the back-up tiley had, Further, the officers
admitted that they did not pull Plaintiff over for any traffic Violation but because there
were "concerns about [him] coming back to General Mills and causing damage"" By
inference, Defendant, through its hired security guard, must have told the officers that
Plaintiff was likely to commit a crime (vandalism. presumably) upon its property" As a
result, Plaintiff experienced harm by being confined against his will and publicly
humiliated before his companion and the general public observing the incident from the
road. For these reasons, Plaintiff contends that he has stated an action for defamation
and respectfully requests this Court to deny Defendant's demurrer as to Count IL
by Derek Hodge, Defendant':; Safely Adminislnttor, thai Plaintill' could return to
Defendanl's premises to relurn his uniforms.
7. On Or about August 'I, 1'198, Plainliffdrove by Defendant's place of business wilh his
companion Plaintiff drove by on a public r\)ad Plaintiff never drove onto
Defendant's propel1y, stoppt,d hb vdlicle in fiont of Defendant's property. or in any
other way trespassed or appeared 10 trespass on Dcf(,ndanl's propcrly At all times.
Plaintiff continued driving on the public roadway and traveled past Defendant's place
of busi ness
8 A few minutes later, as Plaintiff was on High Street in Carlislt'. Deft'ndant's security
personnel indicated to Plaintiff wilh his !lashing lights that he should pull over
I'laintiffwas not violallllg lIny tramc laws allhat timc
9 As Plaintiff pulled into the nearest parking 101. live police cars surrounded his
vehicle Thcsc olher officers were aCling at the behest of Defendant 's sccurity guard
"fWD ollicers stood at the back of his vehicle with their hands on their holsters ^
third, oOicer came to the window of his vehicle and asked for idemillcation" When
Plaintiff produced hir. driver's licenst" the omcer compared his photo with a picture
provided hy Defendant Plaintiff was asked "What were you doing Ht General
Mills?" Ilc was 1I0t given any other reason for being pulled over allhat time.
10" The security guanf was hired. cOlltracted or olherwisc employed 10 guard the
premises of Gencral Mills. Ine The othcr polie(' omccrs were slImmoned by the
hired agelll of Ill'iclldallllo asslsl ill detaining PlallllilT
II Plaintiff and his compallion were qlle;;lioned scparalcly by tl\(' police or sccurily
guard 1l)1 abollt lilleen to twenty IlllnlllL'S and werc lIot told that L'llher \vas n'ce 10
leave during this queslioning. During this time, one of the ollicers ('xph\ined to
Plainlitl' lhat there were "concerns about him coming hack 10 Gerieral Mills and
causing damage, and that's why we pulled you over"
12 Plaintill'did not feci he could reasonably leave or fond his cOIlf1nement because he felt
compelled to obey Defendant's police or security gllllrd
I] When Defendant's lIgent detained Plaintiff, he was acting within the scope of his.
employmelll with Defendant
14 PllIinlilTwas delained withoul any rcasonable 01 probablc cause
15. While the incident on August 9110 was occurring, PlaintifT noticed rnany people
slowing as they drove by, getting a closer look at Ihe incident involving five police
cars. Plaintiff found this ordeal humiliating beclluse he WlIS made to look like a
criminlll in the eyes of the passers-by on a very trafTicked street He WlIS also
humiliated that this incident hllppened in the compllny of his companion.
WHEREFORE, PllIintilT demllnds judgment against Dcfendllnt, General Mills, Inc,
in an lImount in excess of $25,000, lInd for punilive damages in an amounl to be
determined by the trier of fllCI, interest costs, and any other relief the Court deems just
Count 11- Defamlltion
16 Paragraphs 1-15 arc incorporated herein by reference
17 Dc!endant's agenl made some slatementlo the local police ollicers aboulthe PhlilltifT
which rcsulted in those, oft1cers assisting Defendant in detaining PllIintiff In
lIdditron, by virtue oflhe onker 's stllll'menllo I'lallllilT, as rclt'rellced ill pMagruph
1
. ,,\,\' ' '/lIe \llle,
I'-\(\,W" ' (0\\\\,\'/111\\
~ )ICI!,oII'~ .
. " ,,"' '0 ,'" ' .,,^," ,,,, '"'
~o\ o~ le,COI \' r \ '/Ic....\\O
\\'l ~ac\S " ' a\\~ \lelle',
\ '1el\~'l \"a\ '/I \ loe \,,~OI\\\a\\O\\ ( <; sec\\O\\ AC)O~
. ...."0'" eu" . \'1> va" ,"..'
\)e'>\ o~ (I\'l a\\le,> o~
." ",,,,. " ,,,, " "W,\I' ,.' ""
, aI\)' )\\\l.
,\1\'> "elel" " ,
~'/I\,>e s\'/I\\)(I\C ' 1\ \0 '/I\}\"OII\IC"
rd\",\(IC\\\IO
\,/01\\ '" '
le\\l.\\"";' \0 II""
.~ OY /
;1 ~jJ.:;.J'>--
\)\\\\)/.~
" j,' (" (: A
t. ' .1.,.,,(, --,>
t, "' ,.:.----
-~->-'--_./
~'/II" v' \'. '
A.. 10, ""01 0'". II" p"",, "'" """,,,,,,,,,, 10'.. '''10 k ". ""' '.IIi,,, "". '0 ..
.
5,
"""01,,,, "C/, ,. "" ", ,,,,,. m,d "., ", Ii" "",,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,. ^,". ('I,," w"., "." ,',1. "WI"" -." y""
doing III (/cncf'lll Mills'!", (/'ll/'g. I)),
II. 'II" ", """ ''''''d. r"", Id"", II", J. w... '"""" ).", ,,, """" II". ,,,,,,,.,.. "J'
O""Nd ^', II... /". Th, "/10" P"",, "mOO" "'" N' """"'''",01 ""',,',, 10'",. (I '".. (1/)
7. ,.'" """II 00'0' I.",,, ", "'i,,,,,... d"'io, "'"i,h 'i" ",. "'" "" II" """,, "m,,"
/old PI.i",(lT lh" 'loom """ "''''''w" '''",,, /, i '" ",,,,,,,, 10", ,,, 0,,,",,, ^' ill... ""01 "",i,.
01,""". .,,01 d"" I, "',' "" P"II'd '"'' "''' ". Wh ii, '10, I '''ld"" "" A _,,,, 9. "'98. Mo. c,~.
'oil"", rn""y ","pi, """"'" ,.. '10" 01'0" 10,. '''11", , "'"" I,,,,, " , '" i",'",,,. H, '''''''''
lhis ordCIIIIHl/lIi1illting,
"/"'''11'110,. P/"d, "" Co",,, ''''''p,,,,,,,. ""d, d" CO"'d '''lId'd """/"
Imprisonlllcnt", IInd COI/IlIII cntitlcd "/)CliUlIatio/)",
11. O(JI~S'I]Q['1.-"'U;;S";l\l:JJ~!~
;\, /IllS P/lIintitTslllted II cllIim o{'lillse imprisOlllllenl'!
{Suggested AlIslYer: No,J
B, /I/IS P/flinliffstated II cllIim SOunding in dCf'lIllllllion'!
[Suggested AnSwer: No,J
HI. ,'il'AN IlAl~1!J1E.REYIF<1Y.
/'""" Yi ,"",,, " , "'" "'",II", "'''''. &il!! II ,. '"",",. ".1 A. 201. ".1 (I "OJ. "II oJ" '10,
"""",." ",,,,,,,, 'y.",,,, ",. "'" pi,. "di "r. ,,,, ,"" ",,,,,''' '" "." 01, n,,, d" ,.,,,,,.,, '~oy '" 0'
'''''Ii ",,,,,,,,,,. ",,,,,,,,, ,,, 01"" ,., ", ""'" ",."', ';"01, ;" ,,,, .."","," i ,,,. ""!<!""~J!""",,, '''nfu
JY"I. M",. "".".., 0"1. 6t, A.2d. 1235 (1"2), S" ",.R.C./'. 10/9
IV'-.l11IJ.Cll'iSlOlY
A. COIIIIII - p{tl\'{. III/Pfil'Oll/IIl'1II
This cuse l11ay be one (,Ifnrst impressillll, I'llI' it, I present 10 this Court. the question of
whether 01' not nn investigatory stop. wnllnonly rell'lTed to ns 1I "Terry stop", can eonslilute f\\lse
imprisonmcnt. I~I!}"v, <!bill. XX I J,S, I XI>H (!%Xl: ~jl\g[iaryWj'llJl., 41>1> Pa, 144, 2X5 A,2d
'109(1971 I'll, LEXIS (15),
'I he tori of lidsc Imprisonnll'nt. as adoptcd and construed by Pennsylvanill eomts.
requires a pleading of the following elements ill order to ultimately produce lilets which would
establish liubility on the purt of an actor where:
(a) he/she m:ts intending to confine tlw other 01' a third person within boundaries fixed by
the aetor. and
(b) his act directly or indireetly rcsults in stich a confinement of the other. and
(e) the other is conscious of the conlillL'l11cnt or is harmed by it. Gav.liardi. citing. see, 35
of the Restatement 2d, Torts (1965),
The <1IH!.Iiardi court noted at footnotc ., that "false arrest" requires u plcuding offaets
giving rise tn an "arrest", i.e" "the taking of ullothcr into the custody of the aclor for the aetual or
pmported purpose of brining the othcr Iwlilrc a cotlrt, N of otlwrwisl' seclIring the udministration
of the luw,"ld, At 111,
As plead, this case suggcsts thuI Mr. Clark's vehicle wus stopped, and he was questioned
out of conccrns 1(11' public sufely, und rcleuse, Thcre \VUS no nrrcst. no conlillcment. and no
ehurges hrought.
TIll'rei'''re. Defendant. (knL'ral ~dills, respectfully requL'sts tlHlI Plaintiff's cOllnt l(lr'llllsc
imprisonment' bL' dismissed with prcjudice,
8, CIII/1I1 /I . Dejil/l/al/(J//
1111111 actiol1 f(1I' dl'l'al1lnliol1, the Plailllil'i'l1Iu~t pl'lll'e: 11.) the delillnalOl'Y l'IHlrHeler of the
eonullllllicalion; h,) publicatioa hy till' dl'lcadanl: e") ilf: ohligalion to thl'Plaintit't': d,)
undcrstnnding by Ihe recipiel1ls ot' its delillnntory mellllillg: e,) ulldcl'!:tnl1ding hy the rccipient of
it t'.S il1tcl1dl'd t(l he applied to the Plaintift': t',) spcdal hnl'ln to the plaintit't': g,) ahusl' of a
eonditiol1nlly priviil'ged occasion. t0J.u!';u,_Marc.U!. (,71 1\2d. 701 (1<)<)5),
I'll, J{,C,P, 1019(lI) rcquircs a plaintil'i'to plelld II statemcnt. l11ade hy the defendant. which
he considers 10 he dcflll11atory, il1l1 concise lInd summary form, PlaintilTmust plclld that a
parliculllr communication was defamatory ill nature, The communication mll!it he attrihutable to
the defendant. llere. I'llIintiff has Ihiled to plead filcts descrihing any statement or speech
spccifically attrihuted to any employee of (Jcncral Mills. Inslcad. inl'arg. II. he l'Iaims that onc
ofthe oflicers explained that then~ Wl're "concerns ahout him coming hack to <1eneral Mills, and
causing damagc. and that is why wc pulled you over",
After thc officcr's discussion was \;omplcte, there was ooalTest. no cnntinement, and no
criminnll:harges tilcd, Whcther or not a statemcnt is capable 01' a III . matory mcnuing is a
qucstion for the court. Ilowevcr. even bel(n'e sneh a detenninatilln can he made. the Plaintiff
must plead filets describing some hnrm resulting from an alleged delinnatory statement,
I'cnnsylvnnin law requires thllt such harm to, atlc'lst. he alleged to hal'e "hlnckelled the
plllintirrs reputation or tn expose him to pllhlic hatred, contempt. or ridicule, or \0 injure him in
his busilwss or prolbsion", !~;ilu:,J'hLl,I"c1\'ll'hi;!I;k.\:Jl'ic U,", 1,1 Phila. 110, I ()<)7 Phila C'ty,
Rptr, LEXIS 66 (1997); Cashdollar v, Mercy Ilosllilrn-illJ'ittshurgh, 406 I'a, Supcr, 606, 595
1\,2d 70(199\),
, ,
"
by Derek Hodge, Defendant's Safety Administrator, that Plaintiff could return to
Defendant's premises to return his uniforms.
7, On or about August 9, 1998, Plaintiff drove by Defendant's place of business with his.
companion. Plaintiff drove by on a public road" Plaintiff never drove onto
Defe'ldant's property, stopped his vehicle in front of Defendant's property, or in any
other way trespassed or appeared to trespass on Defendant's property. At all times,
Plaintiff continued driving on the public roadway and traveled past Defendant's place
of business"
8" A few minutes later, as Plaintitr was on High Street in Carlisle, Defendant's security
personnel indicated to Plaintiff with his flashing lights that he should pull oveL
Plaintiff was not violating any traflic laws at that dme.
9. As Plaintiff pulled into the nearest parking lot, live police cars surrounded his
vehicle" These other officers were acting at the behest of Defendant's security guard"
Two oflicers stood at the ba(:k of his vehicle with their hands on their holsters" A
third oflicer came to the window of his vehicle and asked for identilication" When
Plaintiff produced his driver's license, the oflicer compared his photo with a picture
provided by Defendant. Plaintiff was asked "What were you doing at General
Mills?" He was not given any other reason for being pulled over at that time"
10, The security guard was hired, contracted or otherwise employed to guard the
premises of General Mills, Inc, The other police officers were summoned by the
hired agent of Defendant to assist in detaining Plaintiff
II" Plaintiff and his companion \Vere questioned separately by the police or security
guard for about fifteen to twenty minutes and were not told that either \Vas free to
2
leave during this questioning" During this time, one of the otlicers explained to
Plaint ill' that there were "concerns about him coming back to General Mills and
causing damage, and that's why we pulled you ove!'."
12, Plaintiff did not feel he could reasonably leave or end his confinement because he felt
compelled to obey Defendant's police 01' security guard"
13" When Defendant's agent detained PlaintifT, he was acting within the scope of his
employment with Defendant
14" Plaintiff was detained withollt any reasonable or probable cause.
15" While the incident on August 9'h was occurring, Plaintiff noticed many people
slowing as they drove by, getting a closer look at the incident involving five police
cars, Plaintiff found this ordeal humiliatin,~ because he was made to look like a
criminal in the eyes of the passers-by on a very trafficked street. He was also
humiliated that this incident happened in the company of his companion,
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff dem9nds judgment against Defendant. General Mills, Ine",
in an amount in excess of $25,000, and for punitive damages in an amount to be
determined by the trier of fact, interest costs, and any olher relief the Court deem~ just
Count II - Defamation
16, Paragraphs 1-15 are incorporated herein by reference,
17. Defendant's agent made some statement to the local police oflicers about the Plaintiff
which resulted in those ollicers assisting Defendant III detaining Plaintiff In
addition, by virtue of the ollicer's statement to Plaintitl: as referenced in paragraph
.1
"
"
"
11 of this Complaint, Plaintifl' alleges that [)efendantmadc knowingly tRlsc
statements about Plaintiff's propensity to commit acts of vandalism.
18. Defendant's statemcnts were fllise in nalure because Plaintitl' had not committed any
crime, did not trespass on Dcfendl\l1t's propel1y, and there was no probable cause
otherwise tor Defendant and the 10cllI police to justify pulling Plaintiff over to
question and detain him.
19, Even if Defendant had a qualified privilege to make some rcpol1s to law entorcement
offiecrs abOllt possible crimes, Defendant abused thaI privilege because any such
statements with respect to PlaintitT were talse, and Defendant made those statements
with actual malice.
20, As a result of the defamatory statements made by Defendant to the local police,
PlaintitT sutTered embarrassment and humiliation because of all the passers-by
watching him being detained, and the five police cars surrounding his vehicle, and
because of the embarrassment of this occurring when Plaintiff was with his
companion,
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, General Mills, Inc"
in an amount in excess of $25,000, and for punitive damages in all amount to be
determined by the trier of fact, interest costs, and any other relief the C01ll1 deems just.
4
5, lie allelles thut he wus stopped und quoNtloncd hy th(, police; one of whom
. eXplained to him thut there wore "COUCl'rns uhout him cOllling Iwck to Clonorul Mills nnd causing
damage, lInd thnt is why we pulled you over",
6, While I'luinlilT docs not Identify Ihe police depurlment, prcsullluhly the
department wns the Curl isle Borough I'olioe, beeuusc the slop \Vas nlleged to of occurred on High'
Street in Curlisle,
7, In his Complaint, I'lulntiff hus described un investigulory stop, sometimes referred
to as a "Terry stop",
8. Plaintiff docs not 1I11ege thut he was U1'rested, 01' thut any e;larges were filed
against him,
9, Plllintiffhlls simply not plead 1I Counll()r flllse imprisonment.
10, PllIlntitrs second Count is titled "Count II - Detlllllatlon"
II, In IIn action for deflllllatlon, the PIlIlntilTmust allege IInd prove a,) the defamatory
character of the communication; h,) puhlielltion by the defendant; c.) its application to the
Plaintiff; d,) understunding hy thc recipients of its defamatory mellning; e,) understanding by the
recipient oflt as intended to applied to the Plaintiff; and/or t:) abuse ofn conditionally privileged
occasion, Sec, Mnil]r v, Marctti, 6'71 A,2d 701, (1995),
12, The only statement mlldc by the policc, und not by any employee of the moving
Defendnnt Is 110ntained inParg, II of Plaintiffs Complaint, and is quoted above,
13, The statemcnt thai thc police oflicer's hud concerns a!lout him coming !lack to
General Mills IInd causing damngc, is not capable of 1I defamatory meaning,
14, Plaintiff has not alleged any harlll caused by this investigatory stop,
.ant . I Jat. ~.:!tl_jU.I46PM GMI f.I'f'LO'M:I'lT Lf441 oa1l2' J-.II
.~. ., 111I....:;! ~~Jl
, ," . ,.,J --,- , .. · .
_, " ' /(. ' ',;,'" "II" ' FIH .' I,......
, . ... ,~ 1,. .}4.'"
'. ....... '
...".. ," ............t..
_.--............--~. ...~--_.---
IN THE COVI.T or COMMON .UM
or CVM.lDU~D (."OUNT\',,'D!t<<SYLV ANIA.
ItJUtY D. CLA'"
. ftlillltR'
:
.
.
v.
CwR AC'.tIoIl - Law /') '-r-
Mo.;. 99~ II../ l,:,,,.t'L I~
SUllY TRIAl. DEMANDED - -' ,
CINEJlAL MI.LU. Inc.
H.dut
NOTICE TO oEIIN>>
'(OIl Haw bun ",eel~"- tIOurt., If you wish to def'end apinst ~he claims let folth In
. lhe following pl8Jll, you mllst lake action within tWliIlIIY d..yi after thi~ complaint Iftl\
notiL;tlIlCC ..rved.'by OIUf:l'in&" writtOll appoarlllCfl personally or by altorney IIld filing ill
wrilinll with the c:olll1 your clefeosea CII' objec:liollllO \lie cla.ims ~I CoRll aplnst YOIl,
'(ou 'tire warned tbal if you tail to do so tl1" CUll may procetd without ynu and ·
judgment ItI8Y be lIfIlercd 1i&i11$t you by lhe COlllt without furthCJ nolice'for Iny mUlley , '..
clllmed in the oomplalJlt or fot any other claim or re\lcfl'lllluelted by ,'" plalllt\f'f', '(()1I
may laIC money or propfltly or otber rialus i/f\po"allll,O' 10'11,
yoU SHOUUJ TA1cE 'fI.'IIS PAPeR. TO VOUf; LA.WYER 1\1 ONCS, TF
YOU PO NOT HAVE A LAWvu. Oil CANNOT AfFORD ON!::. 00 TO 0'"
TELEPHONE THE OFF1CE SET I'ORTli BELOW 1:0 F1ND OUT ',VliERE VOU
.
""
CAN GET LEOAL.1lELP.
cumberlind, CCllIIlIy BII' A'soelalion
2 UbCl'l)' Avenue
CnrllJle. "PA 1'1011
(717) 249-)166
TRUE COPY fROM fIIECORo
~"i:ff:r
' ~., i~ ~
__~_. Irr -""\'_.<i'~ ~-"7:':-"':"
~
~
1
..n"l: .",i, !~"".I\~_ ~_.,JiI(.'\'-'HII ~U LnrL,V'nL~',' L'.....~ Ulf;.._,l ..... .,._
~>.., ~M'"""""" '" ," 'I."..,., "".
. .~ '..;-,........
, mn~ '....,. '.' '"~. ,....
1 ........L... .Jf-'lUCl .
~_ Il9 '.'.-.I!:IWM
f'I,-.,'.
.
IN 1'11& COVllT or COMMON PLEAS
or CUMBJ:ItLAlQ) COONTY. bNNI'YLVANlA
BABY I). CLARK,
Plaia.....
:
avl Actlen 0 l.Iw
"'o.l ,
, .way TRIAL DIMANDI:D '
v.
GI.NlRA.L MJI.I ",'lac.
. Deteadaat
COMPLAINT
" "
P.rtIIIIlu...........a
1. ComplallllLDt I. an individ\aa1 fClldina at 10' IfDpc T~. CIlI'II.le, Cumberland
COUlItY. Pc:nn5ylvlbi.,
2. DeGladuat iH ccllporatiOllthll1 rHimalnaltl place of bua1n"l at 160S Shearer Drive, .'
CarIiIle.ClIIIlbcrland Coumy. PenllSylvanill.
l At .n lim!ll material Iwl",to, Dofendant 1l.1cd rhrovgh ih *SMt~. IleNAllll. and
employees wlla in tum 'Were ac.1l", within the coumllDd ICO!Ifl of their IplIIO)' and/or '
8lIl'Ployrn4llll~ fOr tit", DctCoadant..
~
... All flYeatll c:ornpwnod of herein tuulr. p~ within Cu~bClrlud County.
, COMftll-r~lrm,riIoD~t
" ~8"'Pb& 1-4 are incorporated hmia by ~rence,
6. On or aboUl Au.1L"\ 7,1098, Plaintiff resianed ttom hi, employmenl wilh Defendlllt,
Plaintiff: It his time 4Jr.nl5i~lioll. wu not illltf\lcted 10 .IIY I'lllay from rhe vicinity
CIIf~IlIpUlY property OthCr tbrmer employ_. in facl. l'OUtinely joined De&ndant'~
employees in lbel D-fend&m', lunc;h.room, MotllUvln. Plllinlilf had beoll iltlllUctcd
.' "
i:~. ,.
'"
.",
,',"
..................,...
t.nt Iy! ./'J~qf:L''39 0\'4'''1''1'1 [,I'll ElnOYl1::NTT~1 oalla;
1 .,,,-
J~.lllI 31a.PIli. ,j''!t'.f. 1I/~, .
J~ fill ,s!;, ~lillI'I'I
"~~.,,.,,_ " ", "
lty Dad!; 0; d.. J)cII ~10"'" ..,..,. AdmlailCl:llllOt. ... P\Ilntlfr oould I'ClUtft \Q ,
" ' .
DcftIGdt.aI', pN.lllbn rD rctuta hi,llIIItbmia,
" On or IIbouc AiIJut* 9, 1998, PIIlllift'droVll by De:f'clUlllll" pilOt oIbu1mou with hi.
c:ompaaion. PINntlft' drove by ClI1 I public; tOIId. PWMilf ~ drove ontO
OeAJldanl', propcny, &lopped hi, vehicle in front of Defend&nr', prtl~, or In any
other WI)' ~.I"d 01" appeared 10 trap"" on DeCMdanl'. proporty. "t ,lIlimllS,
PlalntiffeMtlnued driYinfl Olllhe public r~way and lIaveled put Defendant', place
ofbusincll,
"
I, ^ filw minulc~ wer, .. PIa/miff Will on ffigh Street in Carlisle, .L'lefill1d.rrt'lletl,lri~y
", p,ertC!nncl indicated tel Pl.Intiff with hiJ aasbiD' liJlhb Ihat be should pull .,,,,r,
P\alrrtiff WlIS not violatillll any traftic law. at tMltimC,
9" AI Plaintiff' JlUlIed Into lhl neatat Pll'killi 101. Ii...c pl.llice om surrounded his ,
vchl..le, Thoae other officer, wci'c IIl:Iins at the beheAI of \)efendAnt' a ICl:UI'ity au.rd.
TIIIO officer. slQOd at the Ncll .01' hi~ vehicle whh their halllb on rl\eil' hol~llel", ,0\
tbird oClw (;All1C IQ lhe"willdllw lIf hit ....hicle Olnd aalceel fOr idenlific;atinll" Whetl
Plaiodff' produced his drivar's licttlJe. lhe offieer .;omparcd his phoro with II picai'll
, provided by Dc{cndalll, Plainliff' wu .lIked "What were yOLl doinll II Gelleral
Mills"" He w.. not given .nyocllCl reuon for beia.,pu/led over IIIlb.~ time,
10. The securtty SlWd wu hked, contuctcd ut otherwllCl emplQyed 10 guard tile
prcmillU of Oencru Milll\']/lC. The olhN pulice officers were Illmmoncd by the"
hired 181m ofDetendan! to lIui5t in dCfllnini Pllintitf
II. PlalIltitr and hi, OOlllfllllioll wert quenloned Hparlllely by. Ill., police or wcuri\y
paard (or Ilbo1.ll liftean 10 twOl'll)' minutes IlId we", IlllI lold WI 1lI1hc:t' '''IS fl'_ 10
z
11
~ n,'.'!l~":""",""n,~~~4i-.,...;,:~~,,~,
'..' .
.. ,.... ~..w" .. . ...."..
I
r'
.
.......
~
a.nt IIV: lOO.HL '~__01'47PM GMI ~l"F'LoYt'Et'lT' [~Il 02&2,'
. ,
J."'""QIl 811i4P111 _,I'""JJ, !~_
J'Ftt ill '~~:>"-il'"
-.
u:r
,~ ~ _ quetltiol'i\l8., Dud.. thil 11-. oM of the otIoen iIIqllalned to
1'1aiallff' that tbwe .~ "00tIC1lI1II abouc hinI _Ill. badr ta 0cna'aI Mills and
ClUlil.\l.~. /IIId U" wby we pulled )'llU OWII',"
\2, PlliDdft'dld nut feel he could I'eUOlIIbly Ioave CII' cud hi. CMfInlllllent bacau.. he 11111
.'
coftlpllllllCl to OMY De~iuIaat'. poliee or HCUrity lJUlII'Il
13, When Der__m', 18Cftl detained. Plaindff, M WI' .r.tillJ wi'lhln till!: IIllOl" of hi.
""ployment wllh De&ndant,
I", Plaintitrwu detained withOLlt lilY realOoable or prubable ClUse,
.'
as. Whil.," incident on A.up O. walu&CQIrrill8; Plaintiff. noticed lMllY' people
sIowins as I,bey drova by, geu1ns a clo... look III the incident Involving five police'
~. Plaimiff fouad thit .ocd"" humiliatioa bccauIe ht was made to look like .
criminal in the eyes or tho p&Utu-by all . very trafficked street, He wu alto
lIuMilia.ted th&t thi>> incident happened in the co~y of hi. companloll
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands jlld~l1elll a,gaill1it Do.fel'ldant. Gllner.' Mill>>, hie.
. in an lUTIllWll in exCI>> of $25,000, alld for pu"itivc damages in all amo~nt to be
..
detenn.ined by the mer of fKt, hnercat eosrs, and lIlIY odlet' relief the Coon dc:e1l1l ;"'*1.
(;gaot U. - DeI.m..
16, PUllI:lrllpbJ 1- 1 S are illcorpot1led borein by retwCRee.
" 17, DetindaRt's Asent mad~ lO/Ill!lsUIc:fllenl to the locII police ufficers abollUhu Plaintiff
which lCIl,dC.ld in lhoJle ollicel' .uiJrirlA DcfolMlllll ill cktainiog Plaintiff, In
addition. by virtUe oCtile officer', stlletnent 10 "'aioliff. N r.f'tlfencod In plU'llgraph
)
, '
~'
:" , "',.....,,,J~ .. ' ::
;' '",'\, "n~~4 ....thMOJI't"1'lt~......IaIGwlnII,r.1s.
.
Jr"""".. 1 :a..." .rt~ e
,;1m ~ lOb:' l~'1riPIt ~
IlNIt IlV,:. lflI.~\i:2';l..~\ ''If.f'M I;HI Ef'F'lf)\'I"ENT L~1 ollila I
,.
...........lIbOo.Il PlNarift"A pro..-')' 10 toII\lIll\ IIICtI C)flllll.s.lialll,
J', ~', ....... ~ tiIICIln llM\IIO '*",... Plai.ulitr bad Mll'Olftmittld lilY
erhne, did 1/101 COlI"" on t)ef'uutml'. propen,. ~ thmi wu no pmb&blo cillUM
othelwilc for DoteGd.ant and the locll'polioe to JUIlII'y pullln. P1eintiff over 10
qucsdon anclllotaill him,
19, Even ifDrilndUlt ~ . q~lnod priYiItte 10 make SOIl\llI'fPMI ,to ~W onlbfoclMClt
'officers about plllllble crlma, DllfeDCIanr aooJOd lMI privUeso because a.ny "leh
....Ilmonll with raped In Plalnttfl'wcco raise, and J)efellllant nwle tbo" stl.lemenUl
wilh aauaI mailce
20, .... & tClUtt ofthl defamatory S1atemCllt. llIIde by DeI~ndIPIIO tho local police,
, Pla!nt!ff sutrered Mnbarr&lsrnen\ II1l1 humilillliOll bcc&ute of'al1lh~ p&M~ers.by
wlWiblrlS 111m be.i1l8 detained, and tbe five polil1l cauIUl'roundinl.l his vehicle, ancl
because gft.b.o ecnblU't-.ssll\Olll ortbi. CXl\lW'ring w\len "I~indffwas with his,
companiun,
WHEREFORE. PI.intllf' ~.omands judament 'gRiJ1lt DefeMllnt. Qenefat Mills, lnc"
-
"' in In IUI'IOIInl In fllC_ of S2$,000, and f(lr punitivt damages in an IInlCll,lllt \(l be
detllllUined by the lrier of /a~l illlerMl COil" and,any other re1ieflhe COllI'\' deems juil.
,'. "
;'
.
- '
..".."",....,..:,................~....................,'1 "
,', ,..,.........~.:, ,- '
,'...........-' ru ...,.I.j~~.' If
','
.
..lIJ*lIftIlly .)NI\tt4Id.
)(COIlAW. HAlT" DB.l1'CJ.IMAN
Attomeyl for ~11f
~t..J.I1:Pt-~
By
.
." ,
....
.
.
"1
" '.,
, '
!
. ,
....
~ ct. ..".
- t;
\.. ..
~lr) -
~.. ....... ).
.( ,
~: :L ,,:
?,ir
,\(' r-'
lj" (-....1
e" .,--
'.'\ ".'
jC' ....')
I~ Cf'
0 {.o'-'"'\
6, Admitted, By way of fhrther unswer, Derek Hodge informed Plaintiff, on August
7, 1998, as he escorted Plaintiff from the building, that all of Plaintiff's uniforms remained the
property of General Mills and were to bc returned to Gcneral Mills at some point in the future.
Mr, Hodge did not specifically instruct PlainlitT to return his uniforms on any date certain,
Moreover, Mr, Hodge fully anticipated thut Plaintiff would return his uniform during the shift
hours within which Plaintiff had performed his duties as an operator/mechanic for General Mills,
7, Admitted upon information and belief:
8. Denied. It is specifically dcnied that Plaintiff was pulled over on a public
roadway by Defendant's security personncl. To thc contl'llry, Plaintiff was pulled over by all on-
duty Carlisle Police officer, The remaining allegations ofPal'llgl'llph 8 of Plaintiffs Complaint
are conclusions of law to which no response is required, Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
9. Denied, It is specifically denied that five police cars surrounded Plaintiffs
vehicle at the time PlaintitT was pulled over by an on-duty Carlisle Police officer, To the
contl'llry, DcfendAnt's information is that Plaintiff was pulled over by a single marked Carlisle
polic'l vehicle, Two security officers, opel'llting unmarked cars, pulled behind the Carlisle Police
officer's vehicle. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff's Complaint are denied
in that, after reasollable investigation, the answering Defendant, General Mills, Ine" is without
knowledge or information sufficient to forma belief as to the truth of those averments, Strict
proofthereof is demanded at trial, i/'relevant.
10, Denied, To the contrary, Plaintiff was pulled over by a single, on-duty police
officer employed by the Carlisle Police Department, Other persons present at the scene are
believed to be, by the answering Defendant, an off-duty sel:urity guard lInd an on-duty security
2
guard, both of whom were engnged to provide security, patrol and services for the answering
Defendant.
11, Denied, After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant, General Mills,
Jnc" is without knowledge or information sufficient to form u bcliefas to the truth of the
averments of Paragraph II ofPlaintifrs Complaint. Moreover, the allegations ofParagl'llph II
are denied to the extent thut they constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is
required, Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if relevant.
12. Denied, The allegations ofPlaintlfrs Complaint alleging that Plaintiff was
confined by any security officer, either on-duty, or off-duty, employed by the answering
Defendunt are specifically denied, To the contrary, Plaintiffwus pulled over for the purposes of
what Defendant believes to have been an investigatory stop or an "mere encounter" initiated by
the on-duty Carlisle Police officer. Plaintiffs confinement, or his belief that he was confined, is
due solely to the actions of the on-duty Carlisle police officer who made the stop, The remaining
allegations of Paragraph 12 ofPlaintifrs Complaint are denied as conclusions oflaw to which no
further response is required,
13, Denied, It is specificully denied that any agent or employee of the Defeildant
detain the Plaintiff, or made the su~ject stop, To the contrary, Plaintiff was pulled over and/or
stopped by an on-duty Carlisle Police officer ucting within the scope of her employment with the
Carlisle Police Department. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 13 are denied us
conclusions of law to which no further response is required,
14. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no further response is required.
15. Denied, The ullegations of Purugmph 15 are denied by the answering Defendant,
General Mills, Jnc" in that after reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without
3
knowledge 01' information sufficient to foml a belief liS 10 the truth of those averments, The
remaining averments of Paragraph 15 of Plaintiff's Complaint are denied as conclusions oflaw
to which no further response is required,
WHEREFORE, the answering Defendant, General Mills, Inc., requests this Honorable
Court to dismiss Count I of Plaintiff's Complaint and to enter judgment in its favor, together
with interest and costs,
COUNT" - DEFAMA TIOl\!
16, The answering Defendant, Geneml Mills, Inc., incGrporates herein by reference its
responses to Paragraphs 1-15 above as fully as if the same were herein set forth at length,
17, Denied. It is spccifically denied that any statement made by any employee of the
Defendant, General Mills, Inc., to an on-duty Carlisle Police officer on August 9, 1998, was
made with the intention that the Plaintiff would be detained or otherwise confined, To the
contrary, no employee of the Defendant made any statement to a local police officer which was
intended to, or was made directly for the purpose of resulting in Plaintiff's detention, Moreover,
it is specifically denied that any statement made by any agt'nt of the Defendant, General Mills,
Inc" to any security officer, or other person, including the on-duty Carlisle Police officer, that the
Plaintiff had a propensity to commit acts of vandalism, Moreover, no statement made by any
employee or agent of the Defendant was made to any third party that can be characterized as
"knowingly false", The remaining allegations and avermlmts of Paragraph 17 of Plain tilT's
COl'nplaint are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required, Strict proof
thereof is demanded lit trilll.
4
18. Denied, It is specifically denied that any agent or employee of'the Defendant
made a statement false in nature regarding the Plaintiff. Barry Clark. The remaining allegations
of Paragraph 18 of Plain tilT's Complaint are denied in that aner reasonable investigation the
answering Defendant is without knowlcdge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of those allegations, Moreover, the allegations of Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
denied to the extent that they constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is
required, Strict proofthereofis demanded at trial.
19, It is specifically denied that Defendant abused any conditional privilege to report
to law enforcement officers about possible crimes, including a possible crime about to be
committed by the Plaintiff, Barry Clark, It is further specifically denied that Defendant made
any statements that were knowingly false, or were made with actual malice toward the Plaintiff,
Barry Clark. The remaining allegations and averments of Paragraph 19 are denied as
conclusions of law to which no further response is required, Strict proof thereof is demanded at
trial.
20, Denied, It is specifically denied that any agent or employee of the Defendant
made II false. malicious, or otherwise defamatory statement to the local police, It is further
specifically denied that Plaintiff was surrounded by five police cars. The remaining allegations
and averments Paragraph 20 are denied liS conclusions of law to which no further response is
required.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, General Mills, Inc" requests this Honorable Court to dismiss
Count II of Plaintiffs Complaint, in addition to Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, and to
render a judgment in favor of the Defendant, General Mills, Inc,. together with interest and costs,
5
NEW MATTE~
21, Plainliff has failed to state any cnuse of action lIpon which relief can be granted,
22, Plaintiff has failed to state nny cnuse of action upon which a claim for punitive
damages may be granted.
23. At all times material to Plaintiff's cnuse of nction, the Deftmdnnt, its agents,
servants, workmen, and/or employees ncted reasonably, prudently, and in good faith.
24, Any statement or statements made by any employee 01' agent of the Defendant,
General Mills, to a third party is conditionally privileged,
25. Neither the Defendant, nor its agents or employees, abused any conditional
privilege that applies to any statement made by Defendant, its agents or employees.
26, All statements made by the Defendant, through its agents, and/or employees,
I'egardhtg the Plaintiff, Barry Clark, at all times material to Plaintiff's cause of action, were true,
27, All statements made by the Defendant, its agents, 01' employees, were made as a
malter of public concern,
28, Plaintiff has failed to show special harm resulting to him from any
communication made by Defendant, its agents or employees, to third parties, and in particular,
the Carlisle Police Department, or its officers,
29, Any statement made by the Defendant, its agents, or employees, about the
Plaintiff, to third parties, and in particular, the Carlisle Police, is not capable of having a
defamatory meaning,
6
>- .. Co
~
f" ~ ~1 .
U.!r? .",..:(
()..oi!J
,,;',' t.'t ~:,~~%
..i..
ft-," (:1..
{':ll - ......-
@' (") -".' ':f)
<-~) I~~
:;;:J I t_1 r('~ 1f'Ii'o
'"!" ~L' 'L., ILICi..
l-~~ ." ~~'t
15 (11 .::.)
(1' U
BARRY D. CLARK,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, IIENNSYLV ANIA
VS,
CIVIL ACTION. LAW
GENERAL MILLS, INC"
Defendant
99.14 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S PREI.IMINAR.Y OBJECT/ON
TO OEFENDANT~SJ~E1Y.MATTER
DEFORE HOFFER. e.].. OLER AND aUII)o, JJ."
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ,u:J ~ dllY of MllY, 1999,upon considerution of "PlaiJ\tifrs
Preliminary Objection to Inclusion of Scandlllous or Impertincnt Matter Contained in
Defendant's Answer [with] New Malter," the preliminary objection is DENIED.
BY THE COURT,
" .
, , ," ".1 ^
" v ,t, 7j.';1 ~'.i~' A~}J GoS
JI",
I))'.')
. ",)
:-"--',, ! !-, ..j, Il :JC
,'co . "J i " I
. 'T..... \ : iI~J
">- r.') ,..
b: .:J fe;
<~ /,'
In_' .. ")
l"/~? - )
l.J; ;i.::;
p: O_~ I,:'
(I)i
1 ' , n ,
c.:q~:' .- _--I .,
!,:-.Ijj , \'--'r"
:;r-: IltU
~1.. _I :,;) ;") O.
I ..-)
I ,. (n ")
CI G"'J ()
;,
,
i'
, '
6;
~'.;
r,
tlJ.;.:-[
(~t;:
R"'l;,
"Ii'
( ('
,f " '
[_,1k
L'l\__
!:J11;
U.,_,
(-
,-,
()
..
-~
-
C)
c:;
)0.
Ii;
:<'lj ..
r:-::~~;;
:;'."J ~~J
'rf)
:1;',:
;"-.-;,..
t_'OU;
~GI(l.
:!')
(j
;'Jt:
~t~
0:.
a,",-~
....,
:C~j
...,.,
0"1
..
IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PI.EAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
, BARRY D. CLARK,
PlalndO'
v,
Civil Action. Law
No,199-14
JlIRY TRIAL DEMANDED
GENERAL MILLS, Inc,
Defendant
CHlnll/leA'I'E PRmmQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA
IlURSlIANT TO RULE 4009.22
AM II pn'rt"llIi"ltt, III "1'1 VI",' Ill' II ""h''',,'nll fi'r docllments and things pursuant to
Rule 41K19.22, Plllllltiff "NIHi,." th,ll:
I. a hollet. Ilf illlt"'llo ",,'VC lilt' ""hp",,,,,, with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto
WR" 1111111".1 ot ddivt'n.t111l "",,h !,lIl1y prior 10 tl", date on which the subpoena is sought
to tJ"",'rv,'d,
2. a eopy of th" IIlllit'l. Ill' iUltllll, Iudlldinll tht, proposed "ubpoena, is attached to this
ccrtifklllt'.
3. Defl'nd"nt hUM WlliYl,d the 20 tlllY period aud has no obje~tlon to the subpoena being
scrved, anti
4. The "uhl'ot'na Ihlll will he ",'rvetl I" idl'utic,,1 to the Mubpoena that is altached to the
notice of lutt'nt It,' "crYI' Ihe "Uhp"l'l1l1.
Date-.k/fI/11_,_..
~'f
..--:' ,--'7 ,
~~t~ ./L-.~
Nora S. GibMol1, ID #81918
A Ilorney for Plaintiff
Mc(,rIlW, llait & Deitchmal1
4 Liberty Avenue
Cllrlisle, P A 17013
717 -249-4500
717-249.2411 (fax)
~ GO ......,
~ f.:
~. "l-
t',C .. :.:J ~;1"
\JlrJ (,l~ \H1 'if
i'i: ;J~ (J ~~
'" ~
t;, t)..
(-\'i .tr\ . r~)
'I ~,
() , ,-:~ "I :;';'"
;'1 C:;~
'1-" :J! ~,I]
I' C', , ;_.11.1..;
c:...,:a 73
(\:;, G'
'. \ U
""l-~ ,..., >-.
i"r; (",I I'
r'-. ~~~ ,')
( .,
l,U.,"., "
r ')-- . c.
r" ':1:
!_~':' hot ~.~
(:i~-: :_: tn if}
L,' , , .
I.Lj , ;t~
..,.1 Cl Cd
ill ..., , "
, I_U , !J I t~ i'
F P >:
II" (Y) ::'-"
Q o~ lJ
· I