HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-00314
-
.
.
. ;
I'ARTU;S
I, Plaintiff, Rodger E, Sgrignoli Jr" Pro se, hereinafter "Sgrignoli", is a domiciliary of East
Pennshoro Township. I he Counly of Cumberland of the Commonweulth of Pcnnsylvllniu, residing
at II North Enola Drive, Enolu 17025 and all times relevant hereto. Sgrignoli was un Agent of
Ihe Eustl'ennsbol'O Youth Athletic I.eugue. u nonprofit corporulion conducting busirll1sS in East
Pennsboro Township. the County ofCumberlaod of the Commonwealth ofPennsylvunia,
2, Defendant's. Dr, Glenn W, Zehner, lodividuully. and Dr, Glenn W, Zehner. East
Pennsboro Area School Dislrict. hereinaller "Zehner", is a domkiliary of Eust Pennsboro
Township. County of Cumberland of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvunia. residing at ) Charisma
Drive, Camp Hill. 170 II. and at all times relevunt hereto, Zehner wus un Agent for the Easl
Pennsboro Areu Sd1001 Dislrict. hereinaller "EI' School Dislricl", under the uuthorilY EI' School
Districl. Ihe Eust I'ennsboro Meu School Board, hereinafter "The Board", the East Pennsboro
Area School Board Memhers, Individually, hereinafter "The Members", did with will1\ll. wanlon
and reckless disregard actively wilh knowledge und lurethought punicipule in uets and oflcnses us
described in the purugmphs below causing dumuges 10 Sgrignoli
) Defendunt's. Carole A Cuppriolli. Individuully. und Curole A. Cappriolli. East
Penusboro Area School Dislrict, hereinuller "Cuppriotli". is u domiciliury of Cumberland County,
Pennsylvuniu, residing ul 2118 Cuntebury Drive, Mechunicsburg. 17055, and al ull times relevant
hereto, Cappriolli was an Agent lor 1-:1' School District. under Ihc authority EI' School Dislrict,
The Board. The Members. did with will1\ll, wanton and reckless disregard actively with
knowledge und I!)relhought paniciputtl in acls und ol1cnses liS described in the paragraphs heiDII'
cllusing damuges 10 Sgrignoli
4, Defcndunt's, Murciu Greene. Individuully. und Murciu Greene. East Pennsboro Mea
School Dislrll,t. hcrcinuller"Cir(1\,nc", home address unknown allime of filing, at all times
relevant 11I'rcto, ('Illene was an Agent for iiI' School District, under Ihe aUlhority EI' School
District, TI1I' Board, The M,'mbers, did wilh willl!ll, wanton and r,'ckless disregard actively with
3
.,
,
.
..
knowledge and forethought pllrticipalc in acls and on'cnscs as dcscrihcd in tl\(] pal'llgl'llphs hclow
causing damagcs 10 Sgrignoli.
5, Dcfcndant's, MI'. Picrce. Individually, and Mr, Picrcc. East f'ennshoro Area School
District. hercinaHcr "Picrcc", honw addrcss unknown atlimc of liling, III 1111 timcs rclevant hereto,
Picrce was an Agcnt f(lJ' tl\(] EP School District, under thc lIuthority EI' School Di!Hrict. 'rhc
Board. The ~lcmbl'rs, did wilh willf\ll, wanton and rl'ekless disrl'gard activcly with knowlcdgc
and f()rcthought parlieipatl' in nets and ollenses as dl'scrihcd In the paragl'llphs hclow causing
dllmagcs to Sgrignoli.
() D!'fl'ndant's, The Board, conducting opcrations in East I'('nnshol'(l Township,
Cumherland Counly, Pennsylvania. at R90 Valley Stre"t, Enola, 17025, did with willl\JI, wanton
lInd reckless disregard actively with knowledgc and f\nethought participllte inllcts and ollenses as
dcseribed in till' paragraphs he low causing irreparahle damages 10 Sgrignoli,
7, DI'fcndant's, Thc Mcmhcrs. Anthony J, Filippelli. residing at 107 Miller Street
Summerdale. East Pennsboro Township. Cumlll,r1and County. Pennsylvania 17093. I'ally 1.
Schmick, rcsiding at 120 Tcakwood I,ane, Enola, East Pcnnsbol'(l Township, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania f '702\ Randolf C. Alhright. residing at 710 Carriage Lanc,
Mechanicsburg, EastPennshoro Township. Cumhm'land County. Pennsylvania J 70S5, James N,
Biddle, residing at 12 Wohurn Abbey Avenue, Camp lIill, EaslPcnnsboro Township, Cumbcrland
County. Pcnnsylvllnia 170 II, Jill S, Dyson, residing at 17 Sun/ire Lane, Camp Hill, East
Pcnnshoro Township, Cumhl'r1and Counly. PI'nnsylvanill 170 II. Nancy K, OtSlot. residing at
lOR Mountainvil'w Drive, Enola, East Pennshoro Township, Cumberland Counly, Pennsylvllnia.
Kerry 1. Brooks, residing al 12 Covenlry Close. Camp Hill, East Pcnnsboro Township,
Cumherland County, I'l'nnsylvania 170 II, Dr Stephen 1. Frllnchak, residing at 911 Aeri Road,
Mechanil,shurg. Eastl'enllshol'(l Township. Cumberland County. Pcnnsylvanill 170SS, Brian A
Punt. rl'siding at 42 Pine Ridg,' ('ourt. Enola, East Pcnnshoro Township. CUlllbl'r1and County.
Pennsylvania 17025, did with willlill, wanton and reckless disn,gard actively with knowledge and
forethought participate in acts and ofl'enses as descrihed in the paragraphs helow causing danwges
10 S4ri411oli
4
...
.
.
8, Defendanl's. EP School District, a quasi-governmental entity. conducting business at 890
Valley Street. Enola, East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County. Pennsylvania 17025, did
with willfhl. wan Ion and reckless disregard lI(ltively with knowledge and forethought plll1icipate in
acts and otlenses as dl~scrihed in the paragraphs helow causing damages to Sgrignoli,
V.:NIJE
9, Venue is proper in Cumberlnnd County. Pennsylvania, as EP School Districl. has
operated, and continues to operate within Cumherland County. Pennsylvania,
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
10, On or about FchrualY 27, 1998. the aforementioned Defendanls, did with willful.
wanton and reckless disregard nctivcly with knowledge and forethought conspire to libel Sgrignoli
through II series of slanderous accusations. through ncgligent actions. without any finding of fact.
hearing or other arbitrary process. convicting and sentencing him to extraordinary and severe
punishment. and administering punishment fhllllunsubstantiated charges by use of the United
States Mail causing emotional distress and irreparable damages to Sgrignoli, (see letter addressed
to Plaintiffs fluher dated February 27, 1998, hel'l~inaftcr "Exhihit One")
II, On or ahout Marl'll 2, Sgrignoli made a request tolhe Dell'ndilllts, for a post conviction
and sentencing hearing and Sgrignoli's request was denied. fl,ilure to acknowledge. and denial of
Sgrignoli's rel]lwsl, the Dellmdanls, did with willHiI. wanton and reckless disregard actively with
knowk'dgl' and f(lI'ethought conspire to lihd Sgrignoli through a series of slanderous llccusations,
through Il\'gligent actions. without any Hnding of fllct, hearing or other arhitrary process,
COIl\'ieling anil sentencing him to extraordinary and severe punishment. and administering
punishnll'nt I'romunsubstantiawd dlargcs by use of the Uniled States Mail causing emotional
distress llnd ineparahll' dalllages to Sgrignoli, (see lettl'r dated March 2. 1998 hereinafter "Exhibit
Two")
4
s
.,
.
.
12, On or about March 5. 1998, Sgrignoli telephone Zehner after receiving no response to
his request for a formal hearing before The Board and Sgrignoli informed Zehner that he had been
unjustly accused of an offense, tried, convicted and sentenced without any opportunity to defend
himself and his reputation, at which time Zehner agreed to an infonnal meeting to discuss the
possibility of a hearing in his office olfering allendance of the Board President. when Sgrignoli
appeared lor the meeting The Board President was not available as promised, the Defendants, did
with willlid, wanton and reckless disregard actively with knowledge and forethought conspire to
libel Sgrignoli through a series of slanderous accusations, through negligent actions, without any
finding of fact, hearing or other arbitrary process, convicting and sentencing him to extraordinary
and severe punishment, and administering punishment from unsubstantiated charges by use of the
United States Mail causing emotional distrcss and irreparable damages to Sgrignoli. (see leller
dated April 14. 1998 hereinafter "Exhibit Threc")
13, On or about April 21. 1998, following Sgrignoli's request for an explanation as to why at
the previously scheduled meeting to review his request for a formal hearing, for the absence of
The Board President, Marcia Greene and Mr. Pierce, (custodians and accusers). Zehner agreed to
a taped meeting with the aforementioned accusers, Carole A, Capriotti, East Pennsboro
Elementary School Principal, Zehner. and Sgrignoli in allendance, (see transcripts hereinafter
"Exhibit Foul'''), At the aforementioned mceting, the accusers invalidated the charges of the
published facts as stated by the Defendants, proving egregious conduct on behf.lf of the
Defendants and that they did with willful, wanton and reckless disregard actively with knowledge
and forethought conspire to libel Sgrignoli through a series of slanderous accusations, through
negligent actions, without any finding of fact, hearing or other arbitrary process. convicting and
sentencing him to extraordinary and severe punishment, and administering punishment from
unsubstantiated charges by use of tile United States Mail causing emotional distress and
irreparable damages to Sgrignoli,
14, On or about April 21. 1998, following Sgrignoli's request for an explanation as to why at
the previously scheduled meeting to review his request for a formal hearing, for the absence of
The Board President. Marcia Greene and Mr. Pierce, (custodians and accusers). Zehner agreed to
~
-
.
.
a taped meeting with the aforementioned accusers. Defcndant Carole A, Capriolli. East
Pennsboro Elementary School Principal, Zehncr. and Sgrignoli in allendance, (see Exhibit Four),
At the aforementioned meeting. Zehner fraudulently misrepresents. the invalidation of the
accusers charges, refused to take any corrective action to mediate damages and refilsed to do so
unless Sgrignoli offered an apology in exchange, Sgrignoli refused to apologize for offenses
proven to be unfounded, and the Defendant's failure to mitigate damages was willful, and a
wanton and reckless disregard for Sgrignoli's rights specifically designed to cover-up the
negligent conduct of the Defendants, denying Sgrignoli of any common-law due process finding
him guilty by misrepresenting facts. convicting and sentencing him to extraordinary and severe
punishment. and administering punishment from unsubstantiated charges by use of the United
States Mail denying him access to Commonwealth funded school property causing emotional
distress. loss of reputation and irreparablc damages to Sgrignoli,
I
LIBEL
IS, Sgrignoli, repleads the above well-pled paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, inclusive:
16, On or about Febmary 27, 1998. the aforementioned Defendants. did with willful,
wanton and reckless disregard actively with knowledge and forethought conspire to libel Sgrignoli
through a series of slanderous accusations. through negligent actions, without any finding of fact.
hearing or other arbitrary process, convicting and sentencing him to extraordinary and severe
punishment. and administering punishment Ii'om unsubstantiated charges by use of the Ullited
States Mail causing emotional distress and irreparable damages to Sgrignoli, (see letter addressed
to l'laintitrs father dated February 27, 1998, hereinafter "Exhibit One"),
17, On or about March 2, Sgrignoli made II request to the Defendants, tor a post conviction
and sentencing hearing and Sgrignoli's request was denied, failure to acknowledge. and denial of
Sgrignoli's request, the Defendllnts, did with willful, Wlllllon lInd recklcss disrcgard lIctively with
knowledge and forethought conspirc (0 libel Sgrignoli through II scrics of slanderous accuslltions,
r.
?
.
.
.
through negligent actions, without any finding of fact, hearing or other arbitrary process,
convicting and sentencing him to extraordinary and severe punishment, and administering
punishment from unsubstantiated charges by use of the United States Mail causing emotional
distress and irreparable damages to Sgrignoli, (Stlt) letter dated March 2, 1998 hereinafter "Exhibit
Two"),
18, On or about March 5. 1998, Sgrignoli telephone Zehner after receiving no response to
his request for a formal hearing before The Board and Sgrignoli informed Zehner that he had been
unjustly accused of an offense, tried. convicted and sentenced without any opportunity to defend
himself and his reputation, at which time Zehner agreed to an informal meeting to discuss the
possibility of a hearing in his office offering attendance of the Board President, when Sgrignoli
appeared for the meeting The Board President was not available as promised, the Defendants, did
with willful. wanton and reckless disregard actively with knowledge and forethought conspire to
libel Sgrignoli through a series of slanderous accusations. through negligent actions, without any
finding of fact, hearing or other arbitrary process, convicting and sentencing him to extraordinary
and severe punishment, and administering punishment li'om unsubstantiated charges by use of the
United States Mail causing emotional distress and irreparable damages to Sgrignoli, (see letter
dated April 14, 1998 hereinafter "Exhibit Three"),
19, On or about April 21, 1998, following Sgrignoli's request tor an explanation as to why at
the previously scheduled meeting to review his request for a formal hearing. for the absence of
The Board President, Marcia Greene and Mr Pierce. (custodians and accusers), Zehner agreed to
a taped meeting with the aforementioned accusers, Carole A, Capriotti, East Pennsboro
Elementary Schooll'rincipal, Zehner, and Sgrignoli in attendance, (see transcripts hereinafter
"Exhibit Four"), At the aforementioned meeting, the accusers invalidated the charges of the
published facts as stated by the Defendants, proving egregious conduct on behalf of the
Defendants and that they did with willful, wanton and reckless disregard actively with knowledge
and forethought conspire to libel Sgrignoli through a series of slandel'Ous accusations, through
negligent actions, without any finding of fact, hearing or other arbitrary process, convicting and
sentencing him to extraordinary and severe punishment, and administering punishment fl'om
7
1
""
..
.
unsuhstnruiated charges hy use ofth" United States Mail causing emotional distress and
irreparahle damages to Sgrignoli
20, On or ahout April 21. 1995, Ihllowing Sgrignoli's request Ihr an explanlltion as to why at
the previously scheduled meeting to revitlw his request Illr a formal hearing. Illr the absence of
The Board President, Marcia (ireene and Mr. I'i,'rce, (custodians and accusers). Zehner agreed to
a taped meeting with the alllrementioned accusers. Defendant Carole A, Capriotti, East
Pennshoro I:lemelllnry School Principal, Zehner, and Sgrignoli in allendance, (see bhihit Four)
At the allHementioned meeting, Zehner Ihudulently misrepresents, the invalidation of the
accusers charges, rclllsed 10 take any corrective aclionlo mediate damages and relllsed 10 do so
unless Sgrignoli ollcred an apology in exchangtl, Sgrignoli ref(lsed to apologize for ommses
proven to be unfounded, and the Defendant's nlilure to mitigate damages was willful. and a
wanton and reckless disregard 1111" Sgrignoli's rights specil1cally designed to cover-up the
negligent conduct of the lkfendanls, denying Sgrignoli of any common-law due process I1nding
him guilty hy misrepresenting nlets. convicting and sentencing him 10 extraordinary and severe
punishment. and administering punish men 1 f)"om unsuhslantiated charges hy use of the United
States Mail denying him access to Coml1lonwealth Ihnded school property causing emotional
distress. loss of reputation and irreparahlc damages to Sgrignoli,
21. Sgrignoli's d~mages direclly and proximately caused by the Defendant's egregious
conduct and actions indudc, hut arc notlimiwd to the following
a Loss of 11IIure incomc and prof"ssionlll reputation in anal1lount that will exceed
$1.000,00000;
h Prescnt and f(llure emotional dislress and any costs that may be associated;
22, Sgrignoli has sullcred damages as a direct result of the libelous acts of the Defendants.
Sgrignoli requests punitivc damages hy the COUll, and any olher remedy the Court deems just and
proper
II
CONSl'mACV
s
9
-
.
23. Sgrignoli, rcpleads the above well.pled paragraphs 10. II, 12, 13. 14, Inclusive:
24, On or about February 27. 1998, the aforementioned Defendants, did with willful,
wanton and reckless disregard actively with knowledge and forethought conspire to libel Sgrignoli
through a series of slanderous accusations, through negligent actions, without any finding of fact.
hearing or other arbitrary process, convicting and sentencing him to extraordinary and severe
punishment, and administering punishment from unsubstantiated charges by use of the United
States Mail causing emotional distress and in'eparable damages to Sgrignoli, (see letter addressed
to Plaintiffs father dated February 27. 1998, hereinafter "Exhibit One")
25, On or about March 2, Sgrignoli made a request to the Defendants, for a post conviction
and sentencing hearing and Sgrignoli's request was denied, failure to acknowledge, and denial of
Sgrignoli's request, the Defendants, did with willful, wanton and reckless disregard actively with
knowledge and forethought conspire to libel Sgrignoli through a series of slanderous accusations,
through negligellt actions. without any finding of fact. hearing or other arbitrary process.
convicting and sentencing him to extraordinary and severe punishment, and administering
punishment from unsubstantiated charges by use of the United States Mail causing emotional
distress and irreparable damages to Sgrignoli. (see letter dated March 2, 1998 hereinafter "Exhibit
Two"),
26, On or about March 5, 1998. Sgrignoli telephone Zehner after receiving no response to
his request for a fonnal hearing before The Board and Sgrignoli informed Zehner that he had been
unjustly accused of an offense, tried, convicted and sentenced without any opportunity to defend
himself and his reputation, at which time Zehner agreed to an informal meeting to discuss the
possibility of a hearing in his office offering attendance of the Board President, when Sgrignoll
appeared for the meeting The Board President was not available as promised. the Defendants, did
with willtill, wanton and reckless disregard actively with knowledge and forethought conspire to
libel Sgrignoli through a series of slanderous accusations, through negligent actions. without any
finding of fact, hearing or other arbitrary process, convicting and sentencing him to extraordinary
and severe punishment, and administering punishment from
~
It)
...
."""
c"
..
unsubstantiated charges hy USl' 01' the United States Mail causing emotional distress and
irrl'lliIrahlt. dall1ages to Sgrignoli, (see letter dated April 14. 1<)98 hereinal\er "Exhibit Three")
'27, On or ahout April21, 19rm. fl)lIowing Sgrignoli's reqllestll)r an explanation as tn why al
the previously sdwduled nll'eting 10 review his reqlll'sllllr allwmal hearing. lor the absence of'
The Board Presidenl, Marcia (irel'ne and Mr Pierce, (custodians and aCllusers). Zehner agreed 10
a taped nll'eting with tll\' al(lIelllentioned accusers, Carole ^ Capriotti. East Pennshoro
E1emenlary School Principal, Zehner, and Sgrignoli in attendance, (see transcripts hereinafter
"Exhihit Four"), At the all)renwntioned meeling, the accusers illvalidated the charges 01' the
puhlished Hlcts as staled hy the Defendants, proving egregious conduct on hdlalf' 01' the
Delendanls and thatlhey did wilh willll", wanlon and reckless disregard actively with knowledge
and lorethought conspire to lihcl Sgrignoli through a series of slanderous accusations, through
negligent actions. without any finding OftllCt, hearing or other arbitrary process, convicting and
sentencing him to extraordinary and severe punishll1ent, and administering punishmentlrom
unsuhstantiated charges hy use 01' the United Slales Mail causing emotional distress and
irreparahle dall1ages to Sgrignoli,
28 On or ahout April 21, 1998. following Sgrignoli's request for an explanation as to why at
the previously scheduled meeting to rcview his request for a formal hearing, II)r the absence of'
The Board President. Marcia Greene and Mr. Pierce. (custodians and accusers), Zehner agreed to
a taped meeting with the afl)remenlioned accllsers . Defendant Carole ^ Capriotti, East
Pl'nnshoro Elell1entary School Principal, Zehrl\'r, and Sgrignoli in attendance, (see I':xhihit Four),
At the aflll'enll.'ntioned nll'eting, Zehner fraudulently misrepresents, the invalidation 01' the
accusers charges, refused lotake any cOlTelltive aClionlo ll1ediale damages and rcfused to do so
unless Sgrignoli om,,'ed an apology in exchange Sgrignoli refllsed to apologize II)r of1enses
provcnto Ill' lIntl)llIlded, and till' Defendant's Iililure to mitigate dalllages was willllll.and a
walllon and reckless disregard Illr Sgrignoli's rights specifically designed to cover-up Ihe
negligl'nl condul'l of tl1\' Dcll'ndanls, dl'nying Sgrignoli of any cOllllllon"law due process finding
him guilty hy misrepresenting facls, convil'ling and sentcncing himlo e,~traordinary and severe
pllnishllll'nl, and administering punishn1\'nl t'lOlIlunsuhstarllialed charges hy use ot'lhe [Jniled
I"
1/
~
..
States Mail denying him a~eess to Commonwealth ttmded school property causing emotional
dislress, loss of reputalion and irreparahle damages to Sgrignoli,
29 Sgrignoli's damages directly and proximately caused hy the Defendant's egregious
conduct and actions include. hut are not limited tothe following:
a Loss offuture income and professional reputation in an amount that will exceed
$1.000.00000;
b, Present and Itlture emotional distress and any costs thai may be lI!isociated;
JO, Sgrignoli has sullcred damages as a direct result oflhe Detcndants' conspiracies against
the Plaintifl' Sgrignoli requests plmitive damages hy Ihe Court. and any other remedy the Court
deems just and proper
III
I1nAlIDlIL.ENT Mlsnt:PRESt:NTATION
J), Sgrignoli, repleads the above well-pled pamgraphs 1 J, 14. inclusive:
n, On or ahout April 21. 199H. It'lIowing Sgrignoli' s request for an explanation as 10 why at
the previously scheduled meeting to Il~view his rl'quest for a formal hearing. for the absence of
The Board President, Marcia Greene and Mr I'ierce, (custodians and accusers), Zd1l1er agreed to
a taped ml~eting with the aforementioned accusers, Carole A Capriotti, East Pennshoro
Elementary Schooll'rincipal. Zehner, and Sgrignoli in attendance. (see transcripts hereinafter
"Exhihit Four"), At till' allll'\'lIwlltiolwd mel.tillg, tlw accusI~rs illvalidated the dlllrges oflhe
puhlished t1lCtS as stated hy the Detcndants, proving egregious conduct on hchalfofthe
Delcndanls and that they did with willllll, wanton alld reckless disregard actively with knowledge
!lnd flHethoughl conspire to lihel Sgrignoli thrnugh a series of slanderous accus!llions, through
neglige11lactiolls. without any lilldillg of t1ICt, hearillg or other arbitrary process, wnvil',tillg alld
sentencing him to extraordillarv IInd severe pUllishment, and admillistcrillg punishment from
II
IJ
.
..
unsubstantiated charges by use of the United Stales Mllil causinfl ell1otionlll distress IInd
irrepllrllhle dllrllllges to Sgrignoli
JJ, On or IIl,out April 21, 199H, following Sgrignoli's request Illr IIIl ellplllnlltionlls to why lit
thc Ilf\lviously sdwduled meeting to review his request Ihr II flHmill heilring, Ihr the IIbsence of
The Board I'residelll, Marcill On'\'ne IInd Mr. PiercI" (custodians and ill,eusers), Zehner agreed to
II taped l11eeting wilh the 1I111rel11cntioned IIccusers , Defcndant Cllrole ^ Cllpriolli, I':ast
PI'nnsboro t,:lenll>ntalY Schooll'rinclpal, Zehner, and Sgrignoli inllltendanec, (see bhibit Four),
At the alllrementioned meeting, Zehner fl'lludulently misrepresents, the invalidation of the
lIecusers dllUW'S, rl'fused 10 take IIny corrcctive action to mediate dall1i1ges IInd rdtlsed to do so
unless Sgrignoli otlered IInllpology in exchange Sgrignoli relhsed tn apologize fbr o!lenses
proven to be unfounded, IInd the Defendant's failure to mitigate dllll1i1ges was wilUlIl, IInd a
wlll1lonand reckless disregard 1111' Sgrignoli's rights specilically designed to cover-up the
negligent conduct of the Defcndants, denying Sgrignoli of any comll1on-law due process finding
him guilty by misrepresenting lilctS, convicting and sentencing him to extraordinary and severe
punishment, and administering punishment fi'omunsubstantiated charges by use of the Unill,d
States Mail denying himllccess to COlllmonwealth fhnded school property causing emotional
dislress, loss ofrepulationllnd illepllrahle dlll11ages to Sgrignoli
34, Sgrignoli's damages directly and proximately caused by the Defendant's egregious
conduct and actions include, hut lire not limited to tllll t(lllowing
II, Loss of nuure il1\:ol11e and profcssional reputation in ilnIImount that will exceed
$1,000,00000;
h, I'rl'scnt and Itllllf'c cmotionill distress and lIny costs Ihalmay he associated;
]5 Sgrignoli has sutl'enld damages as a direct result of I Ill> Defendllllts' Frlludulent
Misrepr('Sl'lltllliolls, Sgrigllllli requests Pllnitive dall1l1gcs by the Clllllt, illld allY olher remedy the
Court d\lell1s just lInd propel
IV
NH;I.I<a:NU:
11
13
..
.
36, Sgrignoli, repleads the above well-pled paragraphs 10, II, 12, n, 14, inclusive:
:17, On or about February 27, 1998, the aforementioned Defendants, did with willful,
wanton and reckless disregard actively with knowledge and forethought conspire to libel Sgrignoli
through a series of slanderous accusations, through negligent actions, without any finding of fact.
hearing or other arbitrary process, convicting and sentencing him to extraordinary and severe
punishment, and administering punishment Irom unsubstantiated charges by use of the United
States Mail causing emotional distress and irreparable damages to Sgrignoli, (see leller addressed
t9 Plaintill's father dated February 27, 1998, hereinafter "Exhibit One")
,
38, On or about March 2, Sgrignoli made a request to the Defendants, for a post conviction
and sentencing hearing and Sgrignoli's request was denied, failure to acknowledge, and denial of
Sgrignoli's request, the Defendants, did with willful, wanton and reckless disregard actively with
knowledge and lorethought conspire to libel Sgrignoli through a series of slanderous accusations,
through negligent actions, without any finding of fact, hearing or other arbitrary process,
cowicting and sentencing him to extraordinary and severe punishment, and administering
punishment from unsubstantiated charges by use of the United States Mail causing emotional
distress and irreparable damages to Sgrignoli, (see letter dated March 2, 1998 hereinafter "Exhibit
Two"),
39, On or about March 5, 1998, Sgrignoli telephone Zehner after receiving no response to
his request for a formal hearing before The Board and Sgrignoli informed Zehner that he had been
unjustly accused of an offense, tried, convicted and sentenced without any opportunity to defend
himself and his reputation, at which time Zehner agreed to an informal meeting to discuss the
possibility of a hearing in his office offering attendance of the Board President, when Sgrignoli
appeared for the meeting Thc Board President was not available as promised, the Defendants, did
with will lill , wanton and reckless disregard actively with knowledge and forethought conspire to
libel Sgrignoli through a series of slanderous accusations, through negligent actions, without lIny
finding of fact, hearing or olher arbitral)' process, convicting
11
N
~
...
sentencing him to extraordinary and severe punishment, and administering punishment from
unsubstantiated churges by use ofthc Unitcd States Mai! causing emotional distress and
irrl'parnhle damages to Sgrignoli, (sl.e letter dated April 14, 199& hereinuller "Exhihit Threc")
40, On or ahout April 21, IlJlJ&, li,lIowing Sgrignoli' s request fix un explunution us to why m
the prcviously scl1l1dulcd nwcting to review his request li)r u fill'll1ul heuring, for the absence of
Tl1I1 Board President, Murciu Greene and Mr. Pierce, (custodians und lIl:cusers), Zehner agreed to
a taped meeting with the afilrementioned accusers, Caroll. A. Capriotti, East Pcnnsboro
Elementary School Principal, Zehner, and SgriglH'li in attendance, (see transcripts hereinaller
"Exhibit Four") At the af()I'(,mentioned meeting, the accusers invalidated the charges of the
published tilctS as stated by the Defendants, proving l>gregious condlwt on behalf of the
Defendallts and Ihat Ihey did with willHd, wantonund reckll>ss disregard actively with knowledge
and forethoughl conspire to lihel Sgrignoli through u series of slanderous accusations, Ihrough
negligent actions, withoul any Hnding of fij(:t, hearing or other arbitrary process, convicting and
sentencing him to extrnnrdinary and severe punishment, and administering punishment from
unsubstantiated charges by use of the United Stutes Mail causing emotional distress and
irreparable damages to Sgrignoli,
41, On or about April 21, 199&, following Sgrignoli' s request for an explunation as to why al
Ihe previously scheduled meeling to review his request for a formal hearing, for the absence of
The Boan! Presidlmt, Marcia (Jrl>ene and Mr, Pierel>, (custodians und accusers), Zehner agreed to
a laped meeting with the ali)('ementioned accusers, Defendant Carole A. Capriotti, Easl
Pennsboro Elementary School Prindpal, Zchner, and Sgrignoli in attendance, (see Exhibit Four).
At the alllrcnll'ntioned meeting, Zehner Ihul<lulently misrepresents, the iuvalidation of the
llCCUSl,rs charges, rdllsed 10 take uny corwcl ive act ion to mediate damages und rclllsed to do so
unless Sgrignoli oll'I'red an apology in exchange Sgrignoli reHlsed to apologize Illr ollenses
proven 10 be Unfllllllded, and the Ikfendant's tililure to mitigate damages was willllll,and a
IVunton and rl'l:kk'ss disn'gard Illl Sgrignoli's rights specifically de~igned to cover-up the
IlI'l(li\1I'nt conduct of the Defendilnts, denying Sgrignoli ofuny wmmon-Iaw dl'" process finding
"- .. . -
hil1l guilt\' hI' l1Iislepll'senting tilels, convieting and sentencing hi 111 to extraordinary and severe
1,1
/.5
..
..
punishmcnt, and administcring punishmcnt lI'om unsubstantiatcd chargcs by use of the United
States Mail dcnying him IIccess to Commonwealth funded school property causing emotional
distress, loss ofrepUllltionllnd irrcpllrllhle damllges to Sgrignoli,
41 Sgrignoli's damagcs directly and proximatcly clIuscd by the Defcndant's egregious
conduct and actions includc, hut arc not limiled to Ihe following:
a, I,oss of Illture incomc and profcssional reputation in anllmount that will exceed
$1,000,00000;
h, I'resentllnd IlJlure emotional distress and any costs that may be associated;
4.1. Sgrignoli has sufTered damages as a direct result of the negligent acts of the Defendants,
Sgrignoli requests punilive damllges hy the Court, and any other I'(lmedy the Court deems just and
proper,
V
Jo'~AI1/) IlV I1S.: 01<' TilE liNin:/) STATF;S POSTAL SIi:RVICIi:
44, Sgrignoli, repleads the ahove well-pled paragraphs 10, II, 12, 13, 14:
45, On 01' about February 27, IlJlJR, thc IIfbremcntioned Defendants, did with willful,
wanton and reckless disre/jardaclively with knowlcdgc and forcthought conspire to libel Sgrignoli
Ihrough a series orslundcrous accusal ions, through Ilcgligent actions, without any linding offaCI,
heMing or olher arbilrary process, COllvicling and scntencing him to extraordinary and severc
punishnll'nl, aud administering punishmellt from unsubstantiall'd chargcs by usc of the Unilcd
Stall'S 1I'lall I'ausillg elllolional distress and irreparablc damllgcs 10 Sgrignoli, (sec ICller addrcsscd
to I'lailltill's lilt her dal\ld February 27, ) <JclR, hereinllfler "Exhibit OIlC")
4(, On Ill' ablllll Marl'll 2, Sgrignoli mack, a requesl to Ihe Defelldllnts, fill' a post conviction
and sl'nll'neillg IlI'Ming and Sgrignoli's requesl WIlS dcnied, r.lilure 10 acknowlcdge, IInd denial of
Sgrignoli's rl'quesl, the Defendants, did witb willi!,!. wanton alld rccklcss disrcgard actively with
knowledgllalld forelhoughl collspire 10 libel Sgriglloli Ihrough II scries of slandt:l'Ous accusations,
I ~
/~
.
.
through negligent actions, without any finding offact, hearing or other arbitrary process,
convicting and sentencing him to extraordinary and severe punishment, and administering
punishment from unsubstantiated charges by use of the United States Mail causing emotional
distress and irreparable damages to Sgrignoli, (see letter dated March 2, 1998 hereinafter "Exhibit
Two"),
47, On or about March 5, 1998, Sgrignoii telephone Zehner after receiving no response to
his request for a formal hearing before The Board and Sgrignoli informed Zehner that he had been
unjustly accused of an offense, tried, convicted and sentenced without any opportunity to defend
himself and his ~eputation, at which time Zehner agreed to an informal meeting to discuss the
possibility of a hearing in his office offering attendance of the Board President, when Sgrignoli
appeared for the meeting The Board President was not available as promised, the Defendants, did
with willful, wanton and reckless disregard actively with knowledge and forethought conspire to
libel Sgrignoli through a series of slanderous accusations, through negligent actions, without any
finding of fact, hearing or other arbitrary process, convicting and sentencing him to extraordinary
and severe punishment, and administering punishment from unsubstantiated charges by use of the
United States Mail causing emotional distress and irreparable damages to Sgrignoli, (see letter
dated April 14,1998 hereinafter "Exhibit Three")
48, On or about April 21, 1998, following Sgrignoli's request for an explanation as to why at
the previously scheduled meeting to rcview his request for a formal hearing, for the absence of
The Board President, Marcia Greene and Mr, Pierce, (custodians and accusers), Zehner agreed to
a taped meeting with the aforementioned accusers, Carole A, Capriotti, East Pennsboro
Elementary School Principal, Zehner, and Sgrignoli in attendance, (see transcripts hereinafter
"Exhibit Four"), At the aforementioned meeting, the accusers invalidated the charges of the
published lacts as ~tated by the Defendants, proving egregious conduct on behalf of the
Defendants and that they did with willful, wanton and reckless disregard actively with knowledge
and forethought conspire to libel Sgrignoli through a series of slanderous accusations, through
negligent actions, without any finding offact, henring or other arbitrary process, convicting and
sentencing him to extraordinary and severe punishment, and administering punishment from
Iii
/'7
..
.
unsubstuntiuted churges hy use of the United Stutes Mail cuusing emolional dislress and
irreparable dumuges 10 Sgrignoli.
49, On or about April 21, 1998, following Sgrignoli's requestlcJr an explanation as to why at
the previously scheduled nll'eting 10 review his requeslfcl!" a fClI"mul heuring, for the ubsence of
The floard President, Murciu Greene ulld Mr, Pierce, (cuslodiuns and accusers), Zehner agreed to
utuped meeting wilh the ulhremenliolled uccusers , Defendant ('urole ^ Cupriotti, Fast
l'ennsbOlo Fk'lIlenlury School Principal, Zehner, und Sgrignoli in nttendance, (see Exhibit Four)
f\t the uthrel1lentioned meeting, Zehner fhllldulently misrl'prcsents, the invalidution oflhe
uccusers churges, refllsed to tuke any cO/Tc('tive uctionto mediutc dumuges und retilsed to do so
unless Sgrignoli ollered un upology in exchunge, Sgrignoli refused to apologize for offenses
proven to be unfhunded, und tll(' Defendant's Hlilure to mitigute dumuges was willllll, und a
wantonund reckless disregurd flU' Sgrignoli's righls specilicully designed to cover-up the
negligent l~onducI of III(' Delcndunts, ~Ienying Sgrignoli of any common-lull' due process finding
him guilty by lIlisreprl,senting filcls, convicting und sentencing him to l'xlruOldinury and severe
punishment, und udministering punishmentlhUll unsubstulltiuted churges by use or Ihe United
Stules Muil dcnying him access to COlllmollwealth fcmded school property causing emotionul
distress, loss of rc:putUtioll and inepuruhle damages to Sgrignoli
50, Sgrignoli's dUl1luges directly and proximately caused by the Defendant's egregious
conduetund uctions include, hut arc not limited 10 the tiJllowin~:
iI, I,oss ortitture income und prolessionul reputulion in un al1lountthul will exceed
$I,OOO,OOO()O,
h Present und tillUI'C emotionul distress and any costs thuI may he ussociated;
51, Sgrignoli has sullered damages us a direcl result of the Delendunts committing I('aud by
use of the Uniled Stall'S Postal Service, Sgriglloli rt)quests Jlullitive dall1uges by the Court, ulld
allY other renwdy the ('oUIl del'lI1sjustulld propl"',
VI
~:MOTIONi\1. J)IS'I~RESS
1'1
11
...
,..
52. Sgrignoli, repleads the above well-pled paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13. 14 inclusive:
53 On or about February 27, 1998, the aforementioned Defendants, did with willful,
wanton and reckless disregard actively with knowledge and forethought conspire to libel Sgrignoli
through a series of slanderous accusations, through negligent actions, without any finding of fact,
hearing or other arbitrary process, convicting and sentencing him to extraordinary and severe
punishment, and administering punishment from unsubstantiated charges by use of the United
States Mail causing emotional distress and irreparable damages to Sgrignoli, (see letter addressed
to Plaintiff's father dated February 27, 1998, hereinafter "Exhibit One")
54, On or about March 2, Sgrignoli made a request to the Defendants, for a post conviction
and sentencing hearing and Sgrignoli's request was denied, failure to acknowledge, and denial of
Sgrignoli's request, the Defendants, did with willfill, wanton and reckless disregard actively with
knowledge and forethought conspire to libel Sgrignoli through a series of slanderous accusations,
through negligent actions, without any finding of fact, hearing or other arbitrary process,
convicting and sentencing him to extraordinary and severe punishment, and administering
punishment from unsubstantiated charges by use of the United States Mail causing emotional
distress and irreparable damages to Sgrignoli, (see letter dated March 2, 1998 hereinafter "Exhibit
Two")
55, On or about March 5. 1998, Sgrignoli telephone Zehner after receiving no response to
his request for a formal h(~aring before The Board and Sgrignoli informed Zehner that he had been
unjustly accused of an ollense, tried, convicted and sentenced without any opportunity to defend
himself and his reputation, at which time Zehner agreed to an infonnal meeting to discuss the
possibility of a hearing in his office ollering attendance of the Board President, when Sgrignoli
appeared for the mooting The Board President was not available as promised, the Defendants, did
with willful, wanton and reckless disl'llgard actively with knowledge and forethought conspire to
libel Sgrignoli through a series of slanderous accusations, through negligent actions, without any
finding of fact, hearing 01' other nrbitrary process, convicting and
IN
/9
.,.
..
sentencing him to e,xlraordinary and sewl'I' punishment, i1nd administering punishment fhlln
unsubsl<lnlillled charges hy use of Ihe Uniled Stiltes Mail cilusing emotionul distress and
irreparable damages 10 Sgrignoli, (sl'e Illll'~r dllted April 1.1, I ()<)R hereinilller "Exhihit Three")
~(> On or ahoul April 21, )O()R, lill/owing Sgrignoli's requeslliJl' an e,xplanillion as 10 why ill
lhe previouslv scheduled lI1el,ting 10 review his request 1<11" IIlimnill hearing, lor Ihe absence of
The Board I'residl,nl, Marcia Greene IInd Mr. Pien:e, (cuslodialls and accusers), Zehner i1greed to
a laped lI1ellting wilh the al<nemenliolwd accusers, Carole A, Capriolli, East Pennsboro
Elemenlary School Principal, Zehner, and Sgrignoli in allendance, (see lranscripls hereinaller
"Exhihil Four") At the alinemenlilllled lI1eeling, the accusers invalidated Ihe chilrges oflhe
puhlished IiICls as slaled by Ihe Dclcndanls, proving egn:gious eonducl on hehall'ofthe
Ddcndanh and Ihat Ihey did with wil/Il/I, wanlon and rl'ckless disregard aClively with knowledge
i1nd flllelhoughl conspire 10 Iihel Sgrignoli Ihrough a series ol'slanderous accusal ions, through
negligenl actions, wilhoul any linding of iiiI'I , hearing or olher arbitrary process, convicting and
senlencing himlo e,xlI'HordinalY and severe punishlllent, and administering punishmenl fh'llI
unsuhstantialed charges hy use oflhe United Slates Mail causing emotional dislress and
irreparahle dalllages to Sgrignoli
~ 7, On or ahoul April 21, IOOR, Illl/owing Sgrignoli's request fill' an explanalion as 10 why 1I1
the previously scheduled nweling to review his requesl Illl" iI fhnllal hearing, for Ihe lIbsence 01'
The Board President, MIIITill Greene i1nd Mr. Pierce, (cuslndillns lInd accusers), Zehner agreed 10
a lal1\'d mel,ling wilh Ihe i1lilll'nlCntioned accusers, DefCridanl {'arole A, Caprlolli, Easl
Pc'nnshoro ":Ielllenlary School Principal. Zehner, i1nd Sgrignoli in i1llendance, (see Exhihit Four)
AIII1l' alinen1l'ntioned llIel'ling, Zehner Ihllldulelllly olisreprl:sl'llls, Ihl: invalidlllion oflhe
i1rcusers chaQWs, relllsed to lake any coITeclive action 10 mediille dilmages i1nd relllsed 10 do so
unless Sgriglloli otll'red an apology in (:,xchilnge Sgrignoli reHlsed to apologize Iln otlcnses
proven to he unllllllldl:d, alld the Dd'endilnt's lidlllre 10 lIIiligate damages was will/ill, and iI
wanton and rl:ckil'ss disregard IiII' Sgrignoli's righll specil1eal/y desigll\1d 10 wver-lIpliw
lll'gligl'lll Clllldlll't ortlil' Iktl'lldilllts, l"'llyillg Sgliglloli ol'ilny wlllmon,.liI\\, dill' I'I'llC\1SS I1lldillg
hil11 guilr.l' 11.1' Illisleprl'sl'llllllg lill'ls, l'OllViclillg ilnd s\1nll'llcillg him to eXlriloldinilry IIlld SI'.I'\1rl'
1'1
w
..
.
punishment, nnd lldminislering punishment n"omunsubstllntialed chnrges by use of the United
Sllltes Mnil (!l-nying himllccess to Commonwenlth n,lIlded school property c~using emotionlll
dislress, loss ofnlputationand irreparahle damages 10 Sgrignoli.
5ll, Sgrignoli's damages directly and proximalely caused by the Defendant's egregious
conduct and actions include, but arc not limited to the t()lIowin~.\
a. I.oss of nuure income and prolessional nlputalion in an amounttlmt will exceed
$1,000,00000;
h, Present and filture l'motional distress and any ensls thatmflY he associaled;
59, Sgrignnli has sum-red e/llotional distress as a direct result of the Defendants' libelous
acts, Sgrignoli requests punitive danUlgI's by the Court, and any other remedy the Court deems
just and proper
CONCLlISION
Sgrignoli has sulfered grave damnges caused by the Defendant's reckless and unjust conduct
and abuse of power, (see Exhibil \ Afl1davits ofSgrignoli), lie can never be compensated
wholly t()I' the damages caused hy the Delbndants, Sgrignoli has no where to go to get back his
good naillI', nor nn ahility to I'Ompletely achieve the prolessional goals he hnd intended 10 allain,
His good nnllle, calecr, civic rights, and his l'nthusiasmli'r and willingness tn olWUllzl' and direct
communily Illnc/ions has heen destroyed hy Ilw egregious nature of the acts collllllilled by the
Defendants
Sglignoli indudes with this I'Omplnint, allidavits ofwitlwsses, (see Exhibits 6-9)
Sgrignoli inelu(h~s wilh this complaint, aleller published by Defendants, nddressed to tbe
Defendants, and lI'om ()elendants' Solicitor, concl'rning procedurallllodil1calion on issues dealing
wilh suspected I'mployel- harassment nnd the plan of action Ihllowing sucb incidents, Evidence
tbat controls arc being l,stablished to control Zdmer's eWlhitant behavior (see Exhibit 10)
20
:u
1.~'rIflt$
OI~~fI\ ~)
7.~llfI~1
SI~II\',II',11
1.~'rI1I~1
S\',II\1.III,\1
7.~\1I11.~
S\1,tI\',II',11
1.u'rIfI"'~
(If"
S\',li\1.""li
'Z.~\III~
S\1.li\1.IIl'\\
,..
"
"'\\III\'~ \)\1\ \IIU 1",\fI\'
II '1'\ I\IU \",ill\:' "
,,'\'II\I\'~ I~,II ~ I .. \'rIU 1'1\\'1.
. \1U III\,UI'"
'IU'~ filiI ~1I1'\"'~U \\I
".\\W I'\lill\ \~. II'... . " \ . I\I~\ \1.IIIIIU I'"
\11.,1 \I(ICI II'.,\I\'IIIC I'\~ W
,,' 1\ \ ,,"III'I~IIII"\' . I \I"'\; II,,,~II.
"",U . I I II.:~~I 1\1\1' . .
'I'II.:~,I\I~' \1111 '" \~I\I' \~I"IIII \I\I~'"
I. ."U \,,11 I
.. \1..' \)~ \\;'( n,,'''\~ \'"
I \~I",III \III~'" '</I~IU 111,1 ~I'\'I' '
"'-Nu\I. I 111.:.111. I'I'~\ II'I~ \\1',1\ ~\l1I
.1"111\\11 I. .
\;11\1'</111.1"'" ,"
II III.: 1\,\1,1. "
\I.I~U 1\11'': I' .\ \1\1.:\o:.III,\~II.
\1 . I \'\I~u \'11\ I
01 \ \~I'II III
OII...:fI\C)
\'.1~li\',fll,\i
OII.'\)\I\~\
\'.\',11\',1"'\\
,,~II' \ 1111\ \11'\'
~ ' ,-
. \CI\,I...\'I\i\lll.
",,'..1\ I\\\I\'~ ~\I'II "' . ,"\1,\11 loAI.
",.' ,-~
. . II'" \I.:(':III\I\', '" . ,1>.1111 \ 11\11 111,1
. . I\W I\I.:I~. ... ' IIIC II' III.... .
"\'II' \\\11\ ~ .. "\let \I...~...I .:.1 \'~ ,,\ \\).: \11'"
, III~ 1'/.1. ,. ",,~ ",~, .
loAI. \\\1.:1. \ loAI \'.\1"" \ \~\I~ ,'" }
\ \Iilll I\I\\; \\I . "
,...111 . I!WIIIICIII. ~
IIIIIIIIIII~ 11'1' I,ll ' . \. \\1'''' ~I'" \IC'I\':
~I'"'\ 1I1~\,II'"
'\ \ \"~~\" '11-'\\ \ .. ,'l"
.'" .1\ "I'll ,1",1 I ~'\II\ \\I WI .
. ",'" }. .) '-N\I"I ~,\I .'
...' (11....:111.:'. . \ "
,,,1>' '11 \\,.,1 ....
I'il~\ ~I'" ~\lI, .
.. '1,"11\"11 II\"
"'-N.:\I \...1 ~.... \'I'" 1"'\
'~\\I \'I"'~ \\I
, .' \~\'III\ ~I'" ~\I'
"'-N C\\ \ ':I,"~I~"'!
. I'" '-N\'I\I\
11\1\'\1,\,1\\' ... . I~ \11 \)~. 'fC\'
. . . .:I'IIIU II\' \\I ",\)a\ \ ~~ "'1\l1\~\I'\ \~III1~ \II
"~I'. \ ~II\II \ ...~...II. \'111 II \II1\\,II~CI 1111.11 \.". 11"'\' \ 1",\',111
. I \,...1 \~II~ II...\\'III\', I ...
\ ~\"I \1' ...111''''' 1'1 ~I'I \, ,,,,",,: \\1':
I\II11\\I~..: I\W.I~~~:~ \III. ",'\I\I~ 1\lI\II\~~ill~'~ I'll!, 11.:11\ a\II'"\
II'I~': \,....:11., I ~\\I''''~'''' \~'.I' 111.1 . .,1'\'': III"':' 1,"1
. , \ '1\1,,11 1'1' \ . . al~\\)'"I!,' ,
IIUII'IIII' I, ,.,,11'\ 1\..\lIIIII~1I11!, ,'." .111,1 II':~.:I \'''
\lli~ \111" \1",'\ II" . \~I\II ~I,"I I",.I'W'
I II' ~I' \11,'"'\
\ ~\\\\~~1. '"
II \\\I'\; I\,,,~II
.,"
\. I ~II" ~II'"
I 1'11'1 \~ I.' , ' . I
"~I'. 1\111 ~ . " . \1\ \\1'" \1111""
. . . \\1\ 1,1 III'''''' . .\1\
, ." II 1\\\1\ \\1...1': \~.I~ .1.. . \I\;': \,C \~,I': II\;
"\1,' ~\I'I 1...,.1. ",\1.:1': \,... 111\\;11''''
'\""~ I"I'~'
\\'\,~ }
'I"
W-)\\I,
. ..
I'\~~
\\.' (,\~e \'" ~ .
"'-N'" \,.:I~ 1\1 ,~III\', . II \II~\ \0:.111\\ 1,1"
. \ ,(11\\,\0:.':11 11\ ~\lII, \III ' .
'\ \ \0:.11" I
,.~\,.\ ,'Ie \,,~tC\\ .
3~
~
~
t\FI1IIM VIT OF ROIlGlm I<:. SORIGNOI.I ,lit
I, Radner E. Sgriglloli Jr., AIliallt, b~illg fully sworn, deposes, alld states as follows:
I. On or ahout January 7, I~~H, Mr. Johll I'ictrol'aoli, all ag~nt of Dcfendanl East
Pennsboro Township, IIl1d the East Penllshoro Y oulh Athletic League (lWY AL) guaranteed the
PlaintifT a head coaching positioll with an EPY AL Minor Basehall Organization.
2, On or ahout March 4, I ~~H EPY A I. Board of Director's clear Plailltitf of Rny wrong
doing, /.:PY AI. President Mr, I.ester M. IliIhish, a cc: to Ik Zehner's leller to l'lainlifl'dated
Febnlllry 27, 19~H, pllblicly state in front of Plaintiff that his sources who witness the events the
night of February 24, 1~9H had n completely diffeI'Cnt story fl'Omthat pnhlil:hed hI' Dr. Zehner,
NO SANCTIONS WEIH~ TAKI~N IIY ''''Y AI,.
l On or about, March 4, I ~()H, I witnessed Mr. Pietrapaoli make a comment in front of
witllesses to Plainlifl' Ihat Ihere were anahundantnllmher of coaching applications submitted for
thc minor hasd,all program, and indicates Ihalthe Plaialiffwonld not he receiving IIlemn, and thllt
his son wOllld be redratled, (Childrea who's flllhers were head coaches wcre autonlitlieallv
as~igned to their fathcr's leam.)
4. Oil or nbollt Jllly I, I ~~H, atlla EPY AI, D(xly Meeting, Mr. Pietrapaoli is qucstioned
why a coach with a continuos record of verbalahuse, and who had been placed Oil probation the
previous yeM , would he allowed to continll~d as head-coach throughout the I ~98 season. Mr.
Pietrapaoli statcd, in front ofwitl\(Jss, tbllt hI' dill not havc enough applications, The Plaintifflhen
informed MI'. Pielrapaoli thai he had suhmilled anllppliclltion, but WIlS denied, Mr. I'letrapaoli
responds hI' sll)"ing, an incident oe,'urrcd and you knoll' why 1 couldn 't s~lect you (referring to the
ban plaecd on the f'lllinliff by Ellst Pellllhoro Arell School Dislrict).
5, On or nhout March 21, I~~H, Plaintiff is denied nceess to his minor child's baseball
try-outs held at Enst Pennshoro High School.
6. On or ahollt May I J, 199H, Plaintill' is denied access to accompllny and assist his
minor son, as w....11 as provide coaching sllpportto a COll1mllnity Sponsored Little League Temn, at
basl'llllll prllcticI: held al West C're"k Ifills 1':lell1entary School,
7, On or ahout May 19, 191)k PlaintifTis d~nied aeecss to accompany and assist his
minor son, liS well as prol'ide coaching Sllpporlto a ('onl/lIIl11ity Sponsored Lillie Leaglle Tellln, at
baseball pmcti,'e hdd al West Cre"k I Ii lis !;Iemcntary School,
q/
~
-r-
,...,
g, On or lIbont Mill' 26, I~I)K, PlaintilTis d~nicd lIeecss to lIceompallY 1I11d assist his
minor sin, as \\'Cll1l8 provide coaching support to u ConllllunltySponsorcd Lillie Lcugue Teul1l, his
ut hasehllll pruetil'e hold at Wesl Crel,k Ili!ls Elelllenlary School.
~. On or Ilhout JUlie 10, I'J9H, PllIintiff is dellied ll(:eess to his millOI' son and to
support EPY AL hI' heiug hllllued fl'OlIl participllling ill a foolhall emnp held at East Pennsboro
I tigh School.
10. On or about July I, I')~H, Plainlill'willlessesTe<l MUIl~r, EPYAL Foothall
Director, makes a COlllllWllt onlhe hIck orSuppol1 he reccived 011 the t(lOth:l1l eump held JUIIC 10,
I~~K.
II. 011 or ahout Murch 14, PlnilltijT, aud the ten ehildr~n that made up the basketball
team he had head coached were not invitcd to a senson ending haskelhall party held hy EPY AL
Basketball Director and Agent for Eastl'l:nnsboro Area School District, Scot Oroh. Oroh did not
so much as even place a telephone call 10 Plaintiff so that other ul'I'o1ngements could huve been
made for l'laiuliffs tealll, EI'Y AL records sholl' Ihal over $JOOO of leagne money was spent on
this part~., PlainlilTwus hanned frolllllllendillg, causing 10 children, I of whom was Plaintiffs
minor son to miss y...'ar ending social f(lIlclion in which prizes und acelomudes were given out.
12, On or ahonl AugustJ, 1~l)K, the PlailllifTis dismissed as a volunteer equipment
managcr for East I'cllnshoro Y oulh Athlelic I ,eague duc to his inahility to allend gUllles al East
Pennsboro High School.
'?~---
R\xlger
Appeured before me, the llIldersigned notary public for the aforemcntioned
jurisdiction, Rodgcr E. Sgrignoli Jr., who did lake all oath and is personally knoll'llto me, und did
swear that the fOlegolllg IS tlue and cO!reelto the bcst of Ins kml\\ledg~ and heli~f, and did utlh ~i
S1gnuture hereto / ,,)) /~:!-:-/' 1"
Dute: " . ,. ' Notill~" j~:!L}{.d~'
~ NotArial Soal ~ .
Carmalo J Clauello. Notary Publlo
.- V'll I; 1'79 f lomoyno Ooro, Cwnhoclanel Counly
I My Comml..IOI' .,pl'" Fou 26,2002
49-
~FFIDAVITOFTliOMAS D. KNl'~
" Thomas D. Knull, Affiant, being fully' sworn, deposes, and states as follows:
I. I am of the age of majority,
2. I am a former Captain of The United States Marine Corp.
3. I am a resident of 1930 Good Hope Road, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3,"1 make this affidavit based on personal knowledge,
4. I am a witness to the event of Febl1.1ary 24,1998, East Pennsboro Elementary School,
Enola, East Pennsboro School District, East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania.
S, Affiant attests to the accuracy oflhe following statements regarding the incidents
alleged by the Plaintiff, Rodaer E. Sgrignoll, Jr" Pro se, (hereinafter "Sgrignoll") In
The United States District Court Middle District COllrt Of Pennsylvania 1: CV-98-0768.
6. Affiant was present at all times relevant to the issues pertaining to rhe Plaintiffs'
conduct as alleged in the aforementioned action.
7. Affiant at no time saw or heard any of the actions or allegations made by the
Defendant's named in the aforementioned action.
8. Affiant is alarmed that Sgrignoli, a generous volunteer, had his civil right stripped trom
him wilh no foundation to support the severity of the punished enforced by the
Defendant's as described in the aforementioned action.
9, Affiant at no time, has ever witnessed Sgrignoli conduct himself as anything but a volunteer
and professional with the utmost respect and courtesy for other individuals,
10. Affiant affirms the allegations pertaining to the events of Febl1.1ary 24,1998, as
portrayed by Sgrignoli in the aforementioned action.
II. If called to testify at trial, or any other proceeding relating to the aforementioned civil
action,
Affiant would do so in a manner consistent with tl~~it. A
~u~~ !J~
Thomas D Knull, Alliant
Appeared boor'or. me, the undersigned nOlary pullli, forth. aliiremenlioncO Jurisdiction Thnm.. f), Knull, who did lII;e an
OIth and i, I'.r",nally knollllto me. and did 'ww Ihutl ' . of
his ~nnwh.'dl!c ami hclil.'f,lIntl (htlllllh hi:i slgnillllrc Ill'l III lJ'lhl .~tar"11 ~al , J / /1/1 /y
. I r., eenM,1I1 :nfr r'ol;u)' Ptildli' II' 'r-/' , , ( ! I: I I '.1
LJ ~t)
~IDA VIT QEBA YMOND S, MAGr~
. .
/'
,
Raymond S. Masaro, Affiant, being fully sworn,
1. I am oflhe age of majority,
2, I am a residenl of 4431 Venus Avenue, Harrisburg, Dauphin Counly, Pennsylvania,
deposes, and states as follows:
3. I make lhis affidavit based on personal knowledge.
4...1 am a witness to the evenl of February 24, 1998, East Pennsboro Elemenlary School,
Enola, Easl Pennsboro School Dislrict, East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania,
5. Affiant altests to lhe accuracy of the following statements regarding the incidents
alleged by the Plalntiff, Rodger E. Sgrignoli, Jr., Pro se, (hereinafter "Sgrignoli") In
The United States District Court Middle DistriCl Court Of Pennsylvania I: CY-98-0768.
,
6. Affiant was present atoll times relevant to the issues pertaining to the Plaintiffs'
conduct as alleged in the aforementioned action.
7, Affianl at no time saw or heard any oflhe actions or allegations made by lhe
Defendanl's named in the aforementioned aCllon.
8. Affiant is alarmed that Sgrignoli, a generous volunteer, had his civil right stripped from
him with no foundation to support the severity oflhe punished enforced by the
Defendanl's as described in the aforementioned aClioll.
9, Affiant al no time, has ever wilnessed Sgrignoli conduct himself as anything but a volunteer
and professional wilh the utmtlst respect and courtesy for other individuals.
10. Affiant affinns the allegalions pertaining 10 the events of February 24, 1998, as
portrayed by Sgrignoll in the aforemenlioned aClion.
II, If called 10 lestitY allrial, or any other proceeding relating to the aforementioned civil
action, Affiant would do so ill a manner consislent with this Affidavit.
7 AJr!'
, .
f'.....
~~
~
EX\\lUl'f 9
----
. .
,50
,
.
.
.
I .
-.'
~r~
r"\
".n~t,l
,
A II FillA VIT OF nn. MI(:II^,,:I, MCCAIn'NF.Y
I, Michael MeCnrlne~', Afliant, heing f\lil~' Sl\'om, deposes, and states os follows:
I. I fnll of th~ nge of majorily,
,2, I lUll n mental health prolessional with a Ph,D. in Psychology.
J. 11111I n resident of I D4 E, ClIllIherland Road, EllOla, ClIllIhcrland COllnty, Pennsylvanlo.
,I. I had n step-son on Plaintilfs, Rodgcr E. Sgrignoli, 11'.. Pro se, Civil Action US Middle
Dislriet COllrt No, I :CY-'IX.D76H (hereinafler Sgrignoli) Enst Pennshoro Youth
Atllietie I.I'aguc Elcmcntary School Basketball TCanll()r the I ~~H season.
~. IlhanK Sgrignoli for the volunteer efl(lfl pllt in by hilll,
(" I especiall~' thank Sgrignuli f(n the e,\tra et'tl,rt in going ahove nnd heyond the call of
dlll~' h) organi/,ing and condllcting Ihc very Hrst ever pust season haskethall
hlllf'lla'lIent held at liast ""nnsboro 1:lelllenlar)' School held dllring the wcek of
Fehnlary 74, I (I 'IX through March 4, I')(IH.
7, Afliallt does not purport being at East Pennshoro Elelllentary School when Dr. Zehner
IICCIIS~!i Sg,.i~~Il()li of "hecollling verbally nhusivcll IInd "ignoring tfw request of school
stair',
H. Afl1ant, at no tilllc, has evel witnessed Sgrignoli conduct himself as an)'thing hilt a
volunteer and professional \\'ith the utlllost respect and courtesy of oth~r individllals,
~, Afnant has witnessed Sgrignoli stand-up against a tnli~' verhlllly ahllsivl' ~'outh sports
clla"h atlllllcel'dlllg" in fillnlllfthc l:ast Pellllshoro Youth Athletic League Board of
Directors.
10, Afnant \\'itnessed Sgrignoli, 1I volllnteer refcn'c. withstand a physical allaek on
Februllry 25, I'NX by an assistant coach,
II, In alinementioned physicalllllack, Afliantwitnesscd Sgriglloli, call1lly, and \\'ith
assistant escortlhe allacker ontthc huilding, prcventing lilrther violence.
I D. Afnallt has witnessed Sgrignoli give a training lectnre on YOllth sports to
aforemelltioned board a/Ill an nhllsive coach. The leetllrc was condllcted with
the utmosl professional research and preselltation,
II. A lTiallt considers Sgrignoli a "ro", llIodel" to which other youth sports lead~rs should
imilalc,
12, If called to testify nttrial, or any other proceeding relating to the aforelllention~d civil
netion, AIliantwould do so in n llIanller l'onsistellt with this llf11c1nvit,
-B -L#.f, / -,..Lk~___
Dr. Michael McCartney, PhD" Psycholog~'
^fll"cmcd IXllhrl.llllc, the 1I1Idcr,'liglll:tlnolury puhlic for lhe lInlrcllIclIlinncd ,lllrisdiclioll, Michucl McCurtncy, who did
luke /Ill nHlh lI11d is pcrsllllully kIlO\\'llltl IIIc,lIlld diJ S\\'~iIf lIwl till': Ibrugojll!\ is 11'1l11lllld CUITllcl In IhlllXlSl of his
~lltlWllldp" IIntl hl~licr, 1I11d did ullh his ,'d~lIl1lurc Iwrdo.
I>IIle: z.. /J:'2r,~~
~~"
,~
--':'~'--
SMI.
--~._------,
.-.....--.-.-.-.. .
Mv CUlIlIllis iOIIIS":\nillls: NOI~jinLs'@'~~_. 1111 "I':
. . iIJ/.!VfHl B. Worroy, Notary Public .
Easll enl1SbOIO 1wp" Cumbefland Count
My GornllllS5!OII [.lCpiros Doc. 10, 200b
MptJ1blH, PeI1IlWr\l.lfll,lll~soclaiTon 01 NOlil/lus
-5/
=If
0
-0
c).- ,
h; (Ii f6 ~
@ I ~
cr (,'-
tn Ob Lrl
T r- r-
,. ~ I
111 ~ 11
f, j
<i-
/.
t
:,V I j i
" ; ;"'
w
w
.
'.~ ,
(I,
i;
Ill'
()
Ii'
("
" , ,
f, ,
'.l
,
(, "
,
, l.
", , ,
Co' l) )
~
~ t;
~~ '" "
~ 0
Iii .. 5
~ ... ~ .. if
z ..
a ~ . g
<;) !l., ~ 0
~ ~ ~ .. :>
d ..
111
,ll ~ ~ iii
l ~ ~ ~
0 %
'"
<;)
~
l"
~I"
.
.
:z J '/7
'...,
,.
...
2. While Pluintifl'~ Complaint has limited l\tctualawl'ments, the exhihits
attuehed to the Compluint provide the I11etU1I1 huckground of the claim.
3. These exhihits include the trllnscript of II meeting hetwecn Plaintiff und
school district employees und indude cOl'I'espondence hetwcenPlain!iff und DI'. Zehner,
the superintendent.
4, A custodiunusked Pluintiff to r('llloved the ducttupe Pluintiff plueed on
the school gymnasium 11001' during a youth hllsketbull tournument. (Pluintlfrs Complulnt,
Exhihit Fnur--Transcript of meeting of April 21, 1998).
5. Pluintifrs reuctionto the custodiun's request wus inappropriate.
6. Pluintifr concedes thut his words und uetions towards the cuslodianlllay
have been less thunappropriate. lie concedes thut "may he I was a, I putulol or eff(,rt
into this tournament and possihle I was alitlle pcrtlll'hed hecause I hud ulot going on, and
I had to get a lot ofgumes going on and I didn't have time to sit and tulk to you right
then."ld" 1'.3.
7. Plaintlfr 11Irther concedes thut "'might havc hcenaliltlc bit, mildly
irritated because the administration or whocver was Illaking a big deulabout this tllpe thut
wasn't damaging anything at the tillle,... "Id" p. 5.
8.
u!.. 1',2.
9.
10.
The eustodiun churaeterized Plaintifl's conduct towards her as ul'I'oganl.
Plalntlfr was "lllee to Illce" with thc custodian. !II., 5.
As a result or the incident, Dr. Zchner, directed cOl'I'espondence to
Plalntirr on February 27, 1998. (Plaintiff's Complaint, Exhibit One).
2
$1;
~
...
II. 1'llIintl,.f WIIS told thllt he would "I,ot he pcrmillcd toallcnd lIctivltics on
school propcrty unlcss thcy lIrl' educlltionally rclatcd lilt onc ycar from this dllte." W. Dr.
Zchncr Indiclltcd thut "cducutlonuctivltics" W\lllld ineludc "parcnt/tellchcr eonlerchccs
IInd opcn houscs in the huilding." W.
12. !'Iaintiffdlsllgrccd with Ill'. /'chncr's action.
13. ^ mceting WIIS held on April ~ I. 199H to discllss the action. Plaintiff, Dr.
Zchncr and thc custodian lI\tendcd thc meeting.
14. Dr. Zchner offercd torcsolve the mallcr by Plaintiff apologizing to thc
custodian.
15. Plllintiff rcfuscd to apologizc,
16. Instcad, hc institutcd this action suit against Dr. Zchncr IIIllI thc Scho(ll
District.
17. Dcspitc no fllctualallcgations of thcir involvement, Plaintiff includcd thc
membcrs of the school hoard as dcfendants.
] 8, Plaintiff sucd thc principal of the elcmcntary school whcrc thc tournament
was hcing hcld.
] 9. lie sucd the custodians that he confronted in the incidcnt.
MOTION TO I)ISMISS
A. FAILURE TO MAKE SERVICE 1'lJRSlJANT TO I'A.I{.C.I'. RULE 40
20, ('<<.R.C.P.Rule 402 provides fllr thc manncr ofsllrvicc of original pl'OCCSS
upon partics.
21. I'llIintiff has Hliled to make service upon somc or all of thc Delendants in
this action.
J
:j7
--
....
30. The !'olltlcal Subdivision Tort Claim Act provides that no local
govcrnment is lillble Ibr injury to u person by the government or an employee thereof
except liS provided by Act. 42 Pa.C.S.A. section 8541,
31. A local government may be liable only if damages would be recoverable
pursuant to eommonluw or stutute, the injury was caused by the negligent act of the
government or its employee, and the act is within the eight exceptions enumerated in
Act. 42 !'u.C.S.A. Scction 8542.
32. An employee of a local government is liable for personal injuries only to
lhe sume extent as the local government. 42 Pa,C.S.A, Section 8545.
33. The cmployee is immune unlcss it is judicially determined that the
employee caused the injury and such act constituted a crimc, actual fraud, actual
malice or willful misconduct. 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 8550.
34. Local governments arc immune even if it found that the employees were
willful. A local gOVllrlUllent may not bc held liable for wilUhl or intentional acts. 42
Pa,C.S.A. Section 8542(a)(2).
a. School Hisfrief Immunity
35. The School District is immune from all of Pluintiffs tort claims, including
claims bused Upon the alleged intentionaluets of its employees.
36. Governmental immunity burs actions against the School District for
emotional distress, defamation and claims of fraud against the School District.
)7, Plaintiff's Complaint includes a claim bascd upon negligence.
5
.59
--
...
3M, Illalntlff has not averred llny filets establishing that this c1uimls within any
oftl1\' speell1c exceptions to gowl'I1mentul immunity enumerated at 42 Pa,C.S.A.
Section 8542,
39, Accordingly, the tort c1uims ugllinst the School District should be
dismissed.
b, Individual Ilcfendants' Immunity
40. Plaintiff's negligence cluim should be dismissed us to the individual
Defendants.
41,Pluintiffhas not averred any lilcts establishing that this clllim is within any
of the specific exceptions to governmental immunity enumerated al42 Pa.C.S.A.
Section 8542.
42. Plaintiffs claims against the individual defendants based upon fraud,
, defamation, and inniction of emotional distress cannot survive immunity unless the
facts avcrred cstablish willful misconduct by the individual. 42 Pa,C.S.A. Section
8550.
43.
The facts averrcd in the Complaint do not establish that immunity should
be denied the individual defendants pursuant to 42 Pa,C .S.A. Section 8550.
44. Plnintiff docs not aver facts establishing thnt thc employecs cngnged in
nets constituting n crin1\', actunlfraud, actual malice or willful misconduct.
45. The facls pled by Plaintiffs do not establish willfulness by the indi'lidual
defcndunts.
6
~o
~
...
C. Emotional Dbtress
46, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional
stress against the individual Defendants.
47. The facts beforc the Court do not establish outrageous conduct by any of
the individual Dcfendants.
48, There are no factual allegations of any action or inaction by any of the
Defendanls other than Dr. Zehner.
49. The allegations against Dr. Zchner do not rise to the level of outrageous,
He sent the letter to Plaintiff.
50, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional
distress.
d. Fraud
51, Plaintiff has alleged causes or action for "rraud by use of the United States
Postal Service" and fraudulent misrepresentation.
52, Plaintiff has not alleged any actions or inactions by any of the individual
defendants other than Dr. Zehner.
53, Hc has not alleged any facts as to Dr, Zehner which constitutes fraud.
54. Plaintiffs claims based upon rraud should he dismissed. His Complaint fails
to state a cause or action.
c. Defamation
55, Plaintitl' has not alleged that any statement was made or puhlished by any
individual defendant other than Dr, Zehner,
7
tl
r;:
r
lI.lf'
c:'
f'..'
"
()i
I'
(",
(/;
. ,
(,
V'I
"
r
I,'
l,
t).
{
~ t;;
~ & ... "
~ " 0
.. ti .. E
'~ ... ~ .. !
a z ..
. ~ " ,,'
IOl .... ~ 0 "
~~ . " ~
It 0 "
VI
... 0 ~ ii
.. ~ z ~
VI
~ 0
~
IOl
~
""",I
v
.
.
X'8'99
~
..
2, As u rcsult ofthc incidcnt, DI'. Zchncr, dircctl,d corrcspondencc to
"Rodgcr Sgrillnoll" on Fcbrunry 27, 1998. (Pluintifl's Complaint, Exhibit I).
3. Thc correspondencc stalcd that "Hodgcr Sgrillnoli" would "not bc
permlttcd to uttl",d uctivities on school property unlcss they urc educutionully rclatcd for
onc yeur from this dute." Id. Dr. Zehncr indicatcd that "cducationactivitics" would
includc "purcnt/lellchcr conferencl's nud opeu houses in the huilding."li!.
4. Corrcspondcnce was allcgedly scntto thc addrcss of Rodgcr Sgrignoli, Sr.
instcud of Rodgcr Sgrignoli, Jr.
5. Rodgcr Sgrignoli, Sr. demandcd an apology for thc allcgcd crror.
(Plaintiffs Complaint, Exl\. 2).
6. Dr. Zchncr apologizcd to Plnintiff. (Plaintiff's Complaint, Exh. 3).
7. Plaintiff has now instituted this action suit against Dr. Zchner and the
School District.
8 Despite no factualallcgations ofthcir involvcment, Plaintiff included the
mcmbcrs of the school hoard as dcfcndants.
9. Plaintiff sucd the principal of thc e1emcntary school whcrc the tournament
was being held.
10. lie sucd the custodians that hc confronted in the incident.
II. For thc rcasons set forth helnw, Plaintiff's Complaint should be
dismisscd.
2
~7
~
A
19. The Politielll Suhdivislon Tort ('llIim Acl pl'llvld"s thllt noloclIl
government Is Ilnhle lill'lnjury ton person hy the gOl'ernmelltol' nn employee thereof
except liS pl'Ovid,~d hy Act. 42 PII.C.S.A. Section 8541.
20. A loenl gOl'ernmentmay he liuhlc only if damugcs would hc I'ccoveruhle
pursullnt to common law or statute, the injul'Y wns cnused by the Ill'gligent nct of the
government or its employee, and the net is within the eight cxceptions enumeruted in
the Act. 42 l'a,C.S.A. Scction 8542.
21. An employee of a local gOl'el'l1ment is liable till' personal h~juries only to
the same extentns the local governmcnt. 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 8545.
22. The employce is immune unless It Is judicially determined that the
employee causcd the Injury nnd such nct constituted a crime, actual fraud, netualmalice
or willful misconduct. 42 "a.C.S.A, Scction 8550,
23. Local governments afe immune even if it found that the employees were
willful. A local government may not he Iwld lillhle for willful 01' intentionalllcts. 42
Pa,C.S.A, Section 8542(a)(2).
a. School Uistrict Immunity
24. Thc School District Is immune from all of Plaintiff's tort claims, including
claims hased upon the alleged Intentional acts of its employees,
25. Governmental immunity hars actions against the School District for
emotional distress, defilmation and claims of fraud against the School District.
26. Plaintiff '8 Compluint includes u cluim bused upon negligence.
"
--
,..,
27, Plaintiff hils notllverred nllY facts estllhlishing thllt this ellllmls within
IIny ofthc specific exceptions to governmentlll immunity cnumerated lit 42 PII.C,S,A,
Section 8542.
28. Accordingly, the tort c1l1lms IIgllinst the School District should he
dismissed.
b. Indivlduall}cfcndRnts' Immunity
29. Plaintiff's negligence claim should be dismissed as to the individual
Defendants.
30, Plaintiffhns not averred nny fllcts estahlishing thnt this clnimls within any
of the specific exceptions to govcrnmental immunity enumerated nt 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section
8542.
31. Plaintiffs claims ngainst the individunl defendnnts based upon fruud,
defamation, and infliction of emotional distress cannot survive immunity unless the facls
nverred establish willful misconduct by the individual. 42 Pa.C,SA Section /1550
32, The facts averred in the Complaint do not estublish that immunity should
be denied the individual defendants pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S,A. Section 8550,
33, Plllintiff docs not aver facts establishing thllt the employees engaged in
acts constihlling a crime, aetuallrlllld, actualmulice or willful misconduct.
34, The facts pled by Plaintiff do not establish willfulness by the ihdividual
defendants. Accordingly, they arc immune from the tort claims.
c. Emotional Distrcss
35. Plnintiff hns tailed to state a claim for intcnlionnl infliction of emotional
distress ngainstthe individual Defendnnts.
5
~
---
.l6. 11" ,"", """ II. <,<,," II" "", ""lil/,,, """"""" '"""'" liy "y ,,'
Ihe IlIdlvidulIl De/endwlIs.
37. 'h,,, '" "" ,"", ", ,1/""",,,,, "''',y ",,',," '" """",,,, liy ""y ,,' ,,.
De/i'"dll/lts other thllll (Jr, l.ehner,
J8. .'" '1/,.""" ..'"" Il,. 1,011., "" "" "~ '"/h, "'<' " "',"""'".
He sent the h~l/er to P/lllmlll:
39,
""'''1i1T '"iI.. ,,, III"" 01"", "" """I/'''''IIIIi",,, 'I """'11111 dl t
,9 ress,
Frllud
d.
40. "''''>11 IT,,,, ,1/"", '"." ", '''''' "" .. ",'" "y II~ "I'h, II""", S"'OII
PosIIII Service" IlIId /"'wdu/ellt lI1isreNesentlltioll,
4/. PI"", IT "" "" '1/,.", "y "Ii,,,",,, '''''''''' by My "I tho "dI "'''''
defelldlllllS o/her thlll (Jr. l.c/llle/'.
42,
N, h" "'" ,1/",,,, My {,~I, "., " Il,. 41"" 'h,,,, '''''Ii'"".. I"",.
PI"II/in", ""11" ",..'" """ ","" ,""" ,. dI.",,,,,,. 'Ii, C""PI"m '.iI,
/0 S/lIte II CIWse orac/ioll.
43.
e. f}eflllnlltlll/l
44. 1'1"", IT I", "'" ,,,'.'" th" "y .".rom,,,, w'.'""" '" """Ii,,,,,,, by ",y
individUal defendant other thall Dr. Zehne/'.
45. ",.,,," IT h,.. "" pi", My'"" '."'W'hi.. ",,, lli. 1,'Ii"" "'''' "'I/lidly
in/Illy de/a/'IJlllory IIC/s.
46. I"""in", C""pl.,,, ,,,",,,, ,. di.m""", ,,, 'h, "'," /h" /h, .",,,'" "f
Defelldants Were flrh'iJeged.
47.
""""".., Y. "'''''''''', ""'''.' "",,,, ''''''' do,""",,,, 'Ii",,, '" di"",....",
(,
71
l~
t""')
, .
,,-. ,... r=
h~ _-'I
1'; ,;.'
( r~l , n:-
I I ;; I
( n ,
i, , , ,.,-
~L fJ.. ; ~
;':..1
/ ",
~n , ,
c) I , -
I.'
,. , , ",P
L li C~'. , rn
I ! :,l,
.......
I , <:t, ;C;';
(.) C;"l ( ')
('AI
,..
. 'I IIIf 1'1 lI~t of se~l(t Ilf ClllU\l\a1nt \ll1IS
'11"'"" ""'" ... """ "'" ,,,,,,,,M" ," , " .
. . II d \' M ,II 191)1) u\,Ol\ IlIe 1'0110""11\,,,:
""'..... ",,"" ,..~ Moil. ....". .""".. ".... ~" " ~ " ,". .
~
\
la",e~ ",.1'h0",a~ \I, \'.~l\lliIC
1'holl'a~. 'nlOllla~ &. Harct, LI ,I'
:\05 ~ortll \'1011\ SIlCel
S,%III \'1001
\lalf\~\\III\;, \'ell\l~)'I~a\lia \1 10\\
COU\lsclfot:
Easl l'el\I\~bOIO i\lea scllool nis\l'icl, cl al
\\90 \J aile)' S\fCCI
EIlol11. l'CI\I\s)'I\'a\lla 11025
'a~
_0 aJD~ ~",t.)>9 1.)>
o'lJ?-'t Of Cov;t.~9'i"'''~
1.~ 't\\~ ~ co<Jl;l't'i I
C~t.~'
~ \\\cio o'i
J>>OCio'i?'\:~
~
9GtlJ,Gl\O'\';\.
~O\lGio~ io.
. ~\:,\.f,f.,
'i?\.8-~"
J~'
'1/6 . io~ ioJ>>S't
l\ 'fl. 'l.io'CI~' S't~'\.C't 1
G"'~ sc~cfJ"" p'\.
J>>\lSoJ>>
o~,
Viol\l\S'00?-O
9'1: a.\.I ~
. f,9t10'80n'l;.S
~
. l' () \
r""C'
, \)\:. SO
a."CE\ \:.
" '\'1 \:\,\"
" CO'(:\;..\.
(;\\,\L'
'1,0\,\\,\0'(:
Ill'
.', " li'('?/}
I ,]:} /'~.-_.-'
l ..-/-~j.c~~~/
\\)00\:.0\
99~3\.~
l\O ' ~, ~ '\.J>>~
C,\:'\.O"
C'\.'1'\.\.o ~ . .~~OioP
~" piol'l"'"
J"~'!. 't~'\."""
----------------
r\e~,I\
Dr' ..,
\ \:. 0 \:.
'pO\li'
. \: 01'\
\ 3"\\ .
\ C coll\\)' e\O so'
\:,\ ' 0. \:.0
"\10'(:\.1.0
oU\"
\ 3\11
,
j "-'~{:-' ---
'.' f.... ,.,}y/
,. ,,\..,'" ,,".>-'/ ..
'. ", '- //,..// " "e~I\:.\
....,A' '-/../ L.\ "
Ctli. 1,:,'1'">/ \:\lot\1.e.\, . '
./.;:...__---. _ ot 0.\). ,
, \,O\l0.o\l\:.
\DO . \)\\"e. \10\\
's~~ - ;3
e\lot\" \"3\1>
') \,C\lI'\S'I'
W\\\,
Ca.\II\'
~1
~~~.~~". , ."<1/,,, 2 l~ _"""10..' ,..",.. --.., , ~~ , ."" wl,h '" ,.c.lv" II,. ~"~'I
'COI'nJ)Iftlllteflll :l, 48. 'I~ 4h, fOUowlng ~nrvl(:fH' (1m nIl Iii I J
.r,ll'Il VUUI 1I1t1.1. .",d IIkh... Oil thellv.tr.. nfthl" 101m "II thlll Wtt flllllfllwll UM" 8Mlrn Ino): J l!
'M;:::~I~r~.io"n 10 ,tilt frOllt olll~ ""ll/pll.e., tlf fW, II", hllr_lf IfJltr.fl \lnM 11(11 I. t,] ^drfrA!J~on'A Artrt'AM "~ ,lit' I .
'~,~~:!nfllllm n.ce/pI n~u..'frl'on the m.lIll1ltt. b,IQW tll'.WeI, 1Il/lIlbe' 2. rl nAn"lf~lnd l)nUvnly f I J
-".. "tlum n~tlpt '11I4" .how 10 wholTllt~ 'fllcl. W/11 dAlI"lIIIfllclltllfllh.. dllll'l f f J
d."".." _.. __~_ _~'~"" p~'I"",."'~' In_ ."... ,_ ' ""
3,"lViiCJO'^ddfOfJIJQ(riw~' '-_.'-~'--- 41\ Artldo ''''Ihm 'I ",' IJ! 'j
'Z ) I ", 'l () ) [J IJ
Sill Uy r, ()" ;rr;R,,;vbiy~nm j ,a ,_ N
, ( rA.) 1.1 n.g'"",,,,1 b6 Gn'lIl1ml 7'---
I 7 ,"1.111/; f'( '" II E'I""" Mull , Ai ':,"11I,,<1 ,[ , ~
lit II PI! ! 7 t) II u n'I"lI1n.c"lp"O"J~!ch""<f"....SJc.:c>I!,_. ~ ~ J U
C rI f! II' 11 . 7iiilin,ifiiil, .'Yr;/' , tg'" ~ S , l
,;J 6' (---." : I I,~
r,'t1.cn"ii(i ny: If;,11I1 No"'o) .---,.-- ,-,... ......-- - if "Md,n, ".M;i, "'(0/ iYii '''qll".IM ~ ~ ~ Z,
"",/I"" · 1"'111) ~ a I I "-
bz I >>-0
! ~ 18 h~ r-
' '''...' ."" '" ,., DOlllnstle Roturn Rocnlpl ! IS" "_
I'8ro"n381, , . ~ 'i Q)'q; ~ I
!lENDER: ----... ! ' Jij i "-.. "'-. ~ '9 ~
:g:;::~:::::::::;.~:~~:,j:~;"'""'"""."".' :O~I~~I~~'~~~;;~':II~~,'~~ ~i ~: ~ f Jro,b ~ j
:~~l~;r,f;":::::: ,:'::,::::,::~':~::~,:::::' : :':,::,~~:: ::':;~,:',::~'::::::' ",,. .~I'~ ';~dd'."U." Add.... ,~ ; ~ ~ i i ,S! CQ j ~ f< "
.~'~:~!R."'''' R.'''rl''.."."""",,,,~ """"'" ."0.,10. ..lIel. "'""... 2 0 n..hlel.d O.lIv.,y jJ" ~I : lJ ~') .~~ S ~ ~ ,.:
.,,~ R4lurn n"~.I'11 wilt 1I11()W to whom tI" IIIrUd. Willi rlellvlII""I'Hd Ih. dill, J ~ E V "'1 J -t
"'Ilv..'" CO",,," 1'0'''''."., lor t.. ~. ~ E: ,,) Q., ...
n'~A;ffi,,"if~J'" -,.,---...,---- - Z o/.~1II2.~;~~i JhhuJ SA; t' ,1 . ><
kCI(y B,ook,~ ~h~.'v'c.lypo _ - ----...~..... '" c.3 '. '" Ie
/1 CO v, I V c! DJe 1 J A.gl,I.I"'f ~. C.,tlll"d I. 8'J8'8J 84' Uo pD,.,dwoo llhlloo\' NllnUy JnoA.,
.., (' ,1, r . IJ E,p,." M.II [J IIl'UrAd ,~ '001'Jt9 ,dIDo.1I U,"IOII GUlin.o; "ciA ~uotiJ.
(.. q "I r If, ! ( P II /7011 lJ n.'UIIl nllallplf", Me'CllR~ldl'o_[]....~~OD - : ~ ! 0
~~:U' ,Ottl- 'lct..___ _____, ~i I ~ 1 If) ~ ~ 8 J
'fn.""lv-,,(in;;' If'l7iiiNnlll"j---'---..--'-----,...-" A ~:~~',::'~.;~~~<I'." (Oll'VlllOqll"""d 811: j ',_ll ~ T\ OJ 0 ~ ;
'Ii ~'g".h;iO:'(M(;;;;WiiiOr AiiOriiI~---'- if il <.. ~ 0
_X)'//:/>,_.:..'J>::('>';{'rt_. L ~ a: C) (.1;.....,
p~ Fo"n 3811, December 199" 11);",'1'. 'I,' II (11''1 Domestic Return Receipt
ff~~B~i~ Jl :~i
"ENDER: -- ~ (y 1- J rl ." 'l!,
,. _..,---:z ....... II
e~~ 1 I' '"' 2' "'1' I .j I also wl!lh to weoll/o tho U j J J
. ....,"".. Ii till' !Illt,or or Ie orlll I"'vle". E ~. c-... J B151 '
'C<lmj>l." ""... " h, ...d ,. followlllg ''''vlc", 11m 0" 5 " '--'
''',tll' ~Ou, fllllnflllll(lllfkflltlUl on !till ro...,uUl ollhl, 100m'l1 th~t W(l !:I1Il/lllulII Hliq fl)(lrn 1(0). ,a', J' J ~I Ii
card 10 ~ml. r:
'Attach !flit 10111110 11Ift IWIII 01 lhfl OlIlI"Hllrfl, 01 011 Ihft ha(:k II ~p'ro dMq nol I [J ^rldros!lt'lo'!'I AddlOtl9 j S, I ! ~ # fi 0 ,.,;
ptllnll,
.Wrll.'RlffllOl tIlIl:.'ll! n~II.,1'fHf' (Hlllle mallpjecfII b(llow Ihft /Hlir.lflIlUIIIl>Jlr ?, L I floslrklorj Dolivory
. n~ n"",,, n.',"r' .", 01,,,. ,.. .,,,"'''~ ..II.'" ... d'I<v..." ....1110.. 01..1.. ,i ! f
<~~;~: Add.o.'''diiY--'-----m--.--- ---41i";lioiON,il~::~"~I"O,"".".,fO,-'~.,... ~ R j j
D(~ .~, '(('f J}.." .fraI1"l" /.<.' Of? ,? 7 iL7S () ~ ~ i , I
- I~ , , h" ~" S.,v'"" 'y". I _ ~ ~
a/I /l(, "~'I l\r " V "" U 110""'"'''' ,.I'{ (;.,III1.d ! f z
"1 V '- r I r,p'." Mull n '''''''od -r I 1 ~
lb. ~J!1_~",'~n..":~f.:!.'<'.'~t ~~~.o ) 'Ill . ~,
mrcnan/(\ {~rg fll /7L)rr)Onllloln"II"",Y~' /<'o'f' _8,fi, 12
' . ( /... .. '<1 (;' <" ,j ~ I J E
f.liOCOfvori ny- (riiiiiNM,nj- ..- .. , -~ ii ""illn;;;;;;;-, ;;iII, ~~ (Qf{f.IlI/';;;P ') i': g 1
-- S ~{ ,(', ;7 (("He I'll k... 1//"""""1"'"') (, .,'1 .~" ~ r a i,l
ii'mgll.'Wq /Ariil,,,,,,,,, or ""/I~ () --11-' ,~/ :;- ", ,",;. ~ ~ 1"
x/\.~ I ,(" '- (;!L/,~....I\,-, '~! .l' ~
PSFoll1l3811, OocOlllh., 199~ " . "c.,', IJOIllORllc f1Olllfl1 flecolpt :~B.l~!l
'v;i''i'~'": ~!~
9/
'........
\./)
("'
JI8
')(00
,
"
I
III
,
~
J
III
~~
I.
~ r~
v ::)
~ \'..,
-2\
'I... e .-..., I
() , I ~
'-.~, D ~J
Ii .., ,.. \.t
6" , ~ l
J ;.1
,1
~ cr 10'.
'; "' ,
-,-~ I.... . ~
. 0; ()o -:) ~!
y ~ ":', C
'-- U> n: Ie
,.; "'
J
u,
I.'"
(::
'-,
1\'-'
,
Co
~[;
'l' .
. q'"i,
-:l ~_^:,,;
i/.i t TiiT7.
,
C'
~.
<",..
~
'-
.~
o
l.. Qj
--\-
rJ ~
~ I)
"-J
':4;-
l~ ~J '
, E!,
- "I
~r~! -n
';,~';~QL:
\;411111Iiil
. "
0,' . ",,";
, ~~,
' ~~,l f.;,'! '
j.;:(!:'\
--
Q
~
(J"')
C.
:'5
.........~
l..'')
V
'-0,
~
c:::5
_c
\)0 \)
-.... 0
'- ~
~
~::
,~t:_;; e~
o ~ r-tJ
,j;-f";!<
, ,'j':J
I.:U
;,~~)
- '-:~1-1
q
- ~,."""
i .
~~
........ (' I t;
f_ ,~'c -"
i:, "
IJ/" .- J
(), :t:. )
Ii (I,..
(:1) i co
(- , I
l\
i I U
I_ e.
;/;-
, L <:,,, :'
( ) (:j ~ C)
,',
'-"
v
.
. .
~. ~ E?:
h' .:,
.;/'
t-.:l .. .~Jc(
Cl N
Wo-'i. , )t,,~
~n, :0:: c)tf
F: :', <l.. "-)"j
')t'! ..,-;;.....
~~~ , (f)
&)1 (") ~~ "e:
1/'... t~~
....II! o.~
0:;,,, 00:
r..: x: "
IJ, CTI ~..:}
0 C1'\ ()
-~I
,...--- .
tIiIlIIt
RODGER E. SGRIONOLl, JR"
Plllintiff
VS,
EAST PENNSBORO AREA
SCHOOL DISTRICT unci DR.
GLENN W, Z1':JINER, EAST
PENNSBORO AREA SCIIOOL
DISTRICT, CAROLE A.
CAI'PRIOTT/, EAST
PENNSBORO AREA SCIIOOL
DISTRICT, MARCIA GREENE,
Individuully, und MR. PIERCE,
EAST PENNSBORO AREA
SCHOOL DISTRICT, EAST
PENNSBORO AREA SCIIOOL
BOARD, unci ANTIIONY J.
FILIPPELLI, individuully, und
PATry J. SCHMICK,
individuully, und JAMES N.
BIDDLE, individuully, unci JILL S,
DYSON, individually, unci NANCY :
K. OTSTOT, individunlly, unci DR. :
STEVEN J. FRANCIIAK,
individuully, und BRIAN A. PUNT,
inclividulllly,und KERRY J.
BROOKS, individuully,
Defcndunts
~
'.
,..
IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
99-0314 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
/)1", "r,' '';)k. 'r
Cc <,1." (.. rCi'1C~,
I ~),ft) I<.~
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
IN RE: OBJECTIONS OF TilE PLAINT/FF TO T(IF PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
QEJlliWJ1FliNDANIS
BEFORE BA YLJi..Y--M:/D IIESS. .1.1.
!lIillIill.
AND NOW, this
lOll' day of'June, 1999,Ihc objections of the pluintifftothe
preliminury obiections nfthe defendants ure DENIED.
BY TilE COURT,
91
...~ /lA.__~
Kc:vin A. IIess, J.
/
--
,.,.
down becauso Tuesday mornIng I took ttw duct tapo up." .:!,9.~__Q...,.L_
Defendant Pierce states in Exhibit 4 to Complaint, "Moruiay night
Mr. Steve Etter", (Physical EducatIon Teacher for East Pennsboro
Area School Districtl, "and them, you was on the one side and
steve this side because when I opened the door steve was standing
right there, I told steve and you were on the other side" of
what? "and I said steve," (not Rodger), "we can't have duct tape
down because it pulls the paInt rlqht off the floor," (Another
libelous statement, duct tape was on the floor for over 12 hours
with no damage). "So he said I'll take i.t right uP,"...Id!..-.2~~
Mr. Etter disregards the request of the custodian. Defendant
Greene asserts in Exhibi t 4 to Complaint, "Tuesday morning",
February 24, 1998, "I took the duct tape up." .:!.g.,...Jl~,
2. Plaintiff denies in part and avers in part
the statement made by Defendants in paraqraph 2 of their
preliminary objections, and assert.s that Plaintiff's Complaint
has factual averments. The Plaintiff denies that. the exhibits to
his complaint provide limited factual averments, and asserts that
all Exhibits to the Plaintiff's Complaint are factual averment.s.
The Plaintiff strongly avers to the statement, the exhibits
(plural) attached to the Complaint provide the factual background
to the claim,
3.
Plaintiff avers to Defendants' paraqraph
three.
4 ,
Plaintiff strongly denies Defendants'
paragraph four, and refers this Honorable Court back to
Plaintiff's paragraph on8, in Which il PhYSical Education Teacher
ignores the request of the janitor. Defendant Greene asserts
upon being questioned by the PlaIntiff on whether the Plaintiff
/0 I
.
~
disregarded her requHst not. to put duct tape on the floor, "you
didn't disregard mine, you did one of the other custodiansH, Id,
E..'..t... referrIng to Mr. Pierc!!, t.he other custodian involved, This
st.atement implicates Defendant. Pierce in slander, Defendant
Pierce asserts in Exhibit 4 to Complaint, "I don't remember
t.alking to you, H '~c:!".,,".P...J...,.
t'
,),
Plaintiff st.rongly denies Defendant.s'
paragraph five, and refers this Honorable Court back to his
response in paragraphs one and four' ,
6. Plaintiff strongly denies Defendants'
paragraph si.x, and assert.s that having feelings of being
"perturbedH would be an appropriate response to being mistreated
by an off-duty custodian who attempts to return to work to remove
harmless duct tape, and an on-duty custodian that. would interrupt
a league official over same harmless duct tape.
7.
Plaintiff denies Defendants' paragraph
seven, and Bsserts Defendants are taking this paragraph out of
context. The Plaintiff further asserts that affidavits from
witnesses attest to no inappropriate behavior, see Exhibits six,
seven, and eight t.o Complaint..
8,
Plaintiff avers to Defendants' paragraph
eight and further assert.s that Defendant Greene's interpretat.ion
of arroganc(e comes from her incorrect assumption asserted in this
response's paragraph one. Defendant Greene further asserts,
"when somebody t.ells me not to do something, 1 don't do it,H rd.
~.~~
9.
Plaintiff denies Defendants' paragraph
nine, and asserts t.hat any contact with this off-duty custodian
was .in passing.
/0:<'
~
"...
10. Plalntiff denies fJefendants' paragraph
ten, and assets that Dr, Zehner's correspondence was directed to
Plalntlff'sfather, see Complaint flled by Rodger E. Sgrlgnoli
Sr" in Cumberland County Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas on
January 19, 1999, case number 99-313,
ll., Plaint.iff avers to Defendants' paragraph
eleven.
12,
Plaintiff avers to Defendant.s' paragraph
twelve.
13, Plaintiff avers to Defendants' paragraph
thirteen, and further assert that both Defendant Custodians
Marcia Greene and William Pierce, as well as Defendant, Prlncipal
Carole A. Capriotti were at said meeting.
14, Plaintiff avers to Defendants' paragraph
fourteen.
15, Plalnti f f avers to Defendants' paragraph
fifteen, and further asserts that he still refuses to apologize
to either of the two libelous janitors or the Superintendent who
enforced a reckless character assassination by publishing
libelous material to other Governmental Entities.
16.
Plaintiff avers to Defendants' paragraph
sixteen,
17. Plaint.iff denies Defendants' paragraph
seventeen, and assert that the School Board President's
attendance was promised, but not deiivered, see Complaint Exhibit
three, Dr. Zehner states, "1 apologize that we have directed our
previous correspondence to your father, In reply to your letter
Mr. Filippelli, our School Board President, and I would 11 ke to
/ C13
~
..-,t'
~
meet with you to discuss the incident that occurred at the
elementary school," I~
18,
Plaintiff avers to Deffmdants' paragraph,
eighteen.
19.
Plaintiff denies Defendants' paragraph
nineteen, and assert that the custodians who confronted, and
slandered the Plaintiff were sued.
20,
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants'
paragraphs twenty, twenty-one, and twenty-two are nonsensical, as
time running for completion of service had not expire as of
February 8, 1999.
21.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants'
paragraphs 23 through 28 are a1~o nonsensical. Requesting in
excess clearly does not violate the specific sum clause.
Defendants' assertion in paragraph twenty-six is in direct
conflict with his assertion in paragraph two, "the exhibits
attached to the Complaint provide the factual background to the
claim. "
22.
In paragraphs 29 through 45, Defendants
claims that because the D8fendant's can hide behind a
governmental shield, that their actions are immune to civil
liability; however, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 8550, "In
any action against a local agency or employee thereof for damages
on account of the employee in which it is judicially determined
that the act of the employee cause the injury and that such act
const.ituted a crimf~, actual fraud, actual malice or w1..llful
misconduct, tho provisions of sections 8.",45, 8~j46, 8548, and 8549
shall not apply." The Plaintiff asserts that banning a volunteer
director from public facility leased to another organization,
I(H
.
, ~9.:l13 CIVil.
1""'1
,.....,
Words wcrc cxchungcd hctween thc pluintiff und the custodinns, TIll' custodluns rcported thc
incident to thcir superiors, whbh led Eust Pt'nnsboro ArclI Schooll>istrict employce Dr. Glcnn
Zchncr to send the pluintiff a letter notifying thc pluintiffthut hc would not bc pt""nittcd toutlcnd
uctivitics on school propcrtics that wcre not educationully relutcd filr one year. Thc letter wus
first mistukenly sent to the plaiutiff's filthcr, Rodger Sgrignoli, Sr, then later it wus correctly sent
to thc plaintiff.
Thc pluintiff disllgre(~d with the imposition of the onc-year ban, and nmecting was held
between the plaintiff: Zehner, and the custodians on April 21 , 1998 to discllss the incident. The
plnintlff felt he received no satisfnction at this meeting, and filed suit in the United Stales District
Court fbr the Middlc District of Pcnnsylvaniall,gainst the East !'ennsborn Area School District,
as well liS against individual school district cmployees. The District Court ultimately dismissed
the plnintifl's complaint.
On January 20, 1999, the Plaintiff instituted the present action against the East
Pennshorn Area School District, Zehner, the custodians involved in the dispute, und various
other school district cmployees. In the complaint, the plaintiff sets tllrth causes of action hased
upon defamation (Count I), conspiracy (Count II), fraudulent misrepresentation (Count III),
negligence (Count IV), fraud by use of the United States Postal Service (Count V), and
emotionul distress (Count VI). The defcndants have filed u preliminary objection based on the
pluintitrs tllilurc to mak(~ proper service pursuant to l'u.R.C.P, Rule 400, as well as preliminary
objeetions in the nature of dcmurrers to all six counts of the plaintiff's complaint. For the
following reasons we grant the defendants' preliminary objections.
Thc test Illr preliminary oh.iections is wlK'ther it is clear and free from doubt from ull the
fucts pled thut the pleader will he unable to prove filets legally suflicient to estublish his right to
~
110
99.313 CIVIL
~
,-.
t'clle/', Brin~ v. Kcnhurt, 4661'u. 560, 56J, J5J 1\.2d 811, 8J5 (I'a. I 971i). In dctcrmining
whelher to sustain prcliminary objcctions, lhis court must accept as truc ull wcll pleadcd matcrial
facts liS wcllas any r,'asonahle infcrcnccs that may he drnwn from those filcts. !.!<.ill'cr v, 1l0W!rr.
5J I Pa, 54,57,611 A.2d 181. 182 (I'a, 1(92),
With onc cxccption, thc plaintifl's service of process is patcntly dcfcctive. Therc was an
acceptancc of scrvicc, as 1I11owcd under l'a.R.C.P. Ruk, 402, by dcfendants ElIst I'ennsboro Arell
Schooll>istrict, Zchncr, Punt, and Schmick. Ilowcvcr, scrvicc of the compluint liS to thc various
othcr defcndnnts was attempted via mail. Pursullnt to Pa,R,C.P. Rule 400, scrviee of proccss is
to he done by thc shcriff, and pursuant to Rulc 40J, scrvice of original process hy mllil is
permittcd only in ccrtain circumstanccs. No aspcct of the plaintifl's complaint fnlls within one
of those categorics whcrc servicc ofproeess by mail is propcr and thcrefore thc scrvicc of
process as to the rcmllining defend lints is dcfective,
Ncverthelcss, cwn hlld thc plllintifl's scrvicc of proccss confllrlncd to thc Pcnnsylvanill
Rules ofCivilProccdlll'c, the defcndants' prcliminary ohjections liS to all six counts of the
compluint l11ust hc grantcd, First, each of the plaintiffs tort claims lIgainst thc East Pennsboro
Arca School District as a govel'llmcntlll entity arc harred hy governmental iml11unity undcr 42
Pa,C.S.A. Section 8541, whichstlltcs thlltno local govcl'llment lIgcncy is lillblc fl1r injury caused
by the government lIgency or hy one of its employees cxceptlls provided by thc ae!. A school
district is dcfined liS a local agency for purposes of govcrnmcntal immunity. Petula v. MelloQx,
158 l'a.C'ol11mw, 212, 216, IiJ I A.2d 762, 764 (PlI. COIllmw. Cl. 199J).
In order 1(11' a local govcrnmcntal agency to he liahle undcr 42 Pn.C,S,^, Section 8542(u),
a pluintiff must show that thc damagcs would be rccovcruhle plll'suilntlo the commonlilw or u
statute, that the injury WlIS caused by the negligent act of the agcncy or ils employee, and thut the
,1
/II
r"'\
/"""
99.313 CIVIl.
ncgligcntllctlltlls within onc ofthc cight cxceptions to govcrtlmcntul immunily dcscribed in
ScctionIl542(h). Muliu v. MOl1ehllk, 116 Pa. Commw. 4R4, 491, 543 A.2d I R4, 1 RR (I'll.
COlllmw. Cl. I ~RR). Thc cight exceptions to locul govcrnment agcncy immunity listcd in Section
R542(h) m..': (I) vchiclc liubility: (2) carc, custody or control of pcrsonul propcrty; (3) rcul
property; (4) trl'es, traffic controls und strcct lighting; (5) utility scrvicc Iltcilitics; (6) strccts; (7)
sidcwulks; und (8) carc, custody 01' control ofunimals. 42 Pa.C,S.A. Section R542(b), Clcarly,
nonc of thc counts of the pluintifl"s complaint that allegc ncgligcnt acts fall wilhin onc ofthc
ahovc eight cxceptions,
Additionally, Scction R542 (u)(2) stutcs thut "ncgligent acts" does not inch.lde acts which
constitute a crime, actual f1'aud, actualmulice or willfulmisconducl. Thcrcforc, pursuuntto
Scction R542(a)(2), locul govcrnmcntugcncies cunnot be liuhlc for the willful or intcntional acts
of thcir cmployces. St<lli!cr v. Stcincr, 97 PU. Commw. 440, 509 A.2d 1368, 1370 (Pa. Commw.
Ct. 19R6). Thus the counts of the pluintiff's complaint against thc Eust Pcnnsboro Area School
District alleging willful misconduct must bc dismisscd along with thc counts allcging ncgligcnt
conduct.
Thc dcfcndants havc ulso filcd dcmurrcrs to thc plaintiffs claims against the individual
defcndants liS well. An cmployee of ulocal government is liable for pcrsonul injurics causcd hy
acts of the cmployee performed wilhintl1l' scope of his officc or duties only to thc. samc cxtcntlls
the local govcrnmentugcncy. 42 Pa.CS.A. Section 8545. Thc plaintiff has not ullcgcd any fltets
in the complaint that sholl' thaI any of thc school district employccs nmnedas defcndants in this
action actcd oulsidc thc scopc oftlwir dutics as cmployees of the East Pcnnshoro Arca School
Districl. Thcretllr\', in ordcr /llr the claims against the individuals to survivc thc defendants
prcliminary ohjeclions, thc plaintiff must cither allcgc ncgligcntacts by thc dcfcndant cmployecs
.1
1/;)
,""'"
;-'"
99.) 13 CIVIl.
that full within onc ofthc cight cxccptions to immunity IIstcd in Sllelion K542(h), 01' nllcgc facts
thut thc cmploycC!I' uds constitutcd a crimc, actual frnud, aetualmalicc or willful misconduct, In
which case thc defense of omelal imlllunity is wuived. 42 Pu,C,S.A. Scction K550,
An action tbr detlullutionalso does not lilll within onc of thc cight cxceptions listed in42
l'u.C.S,A, Sectionll545, Thereforc, the pluintilTwould have to nllege that the libelous or
slunderous acts hy any of thc various individual dcfenduuts were done willfully or maliciously in
ordcr to ahrogate the of'ticiul il11munity dcfcnse pursuant to 42 Pa.C,S.A, Section K550. "Willful
misconduct" under Section 8550 requircs a party to have actcd with morc than gross negligence
or rccklessness, McNeal v. City of Baston, 143Pa. COI11I11W. 151, 159, 59K A.2d 63K. 642 (I'a.
Commw, Cl. 1991), Willful misconduct means that thl' actor desircd to hring about the rcsult
that followed, or elsc that the actor was aware thatthc result was substantially certain to occur,
Williams v. City of Philadclphia, 131 Pa. COI11I11W, Ct. 71, 76, 56~ A,2d 419, 421 (Pa, Comtnw,
Cl. 19(0),
The plaintiffs compluint statcs that "the aforementioned defendants, did with willful,
wunton and reckless disregard actively with knowledge and forethought conspire to lihcl (the
plaintiff)," The complaint goes on to mcntion that thc defendants madc "slandcrous accusations"
und that thc defcndants "administcrcd punishmcnt from unsuhstuntiated charges hy use of the
Unitcd Stutes Mail." This colorfullunguugc is repeatcd throughout count I, and throughout the
cntirc complaint. Howcvcr, thesc statements are mcrely conclusionary allegations without any
undcrlying tilctual basis, Inlilct, thc cntirc complaint contains only limitcd factual avcrmcnts,
Thcrcforc, as thc plaintiff has tililed to allcgc any lilCts that support a claim that thc defcndants
acted willfully 10 dcful11c the pluintifC the defendants' preliminury objcction as to count 1 is
grantcd.
5
)/3
,...
r,
99.) 13 CIVIL
The defcndants' pmliminllry ol~iectionto the plnintilfs conspirllcy c1nim (count II) will
IIlilO he sustained. Thc clements of II conspiracy claim lire ns follows: (I) u comhination of two
or more pcrsons acting with n common purpose to do anunlllwfilluct or to do a luwful nct hy
unluwful mcalw or 1(11' anunlllwliil purpose; (2) an ovcrt nct dOlll' in pursuance of the common
purpose; and (J) l!etuallegal damagc. Strickland v. Universitv ofSctnnton, 700 A.2d 979, 987-
988 (l'a, Super. 1(97). Thl' court went on to statc that "pl'Oofofmalicc or intent to ir,iure is
essential to the proofofa conspiracy." ).4, Thc plaintiff has again !llilcd to allege tilcts that
would estahlish that any of the individual del'endants acted in eonccrt to intcntionally CllUSC
injury to the plaintifl'. Count II of the complaint is fillcd with statcmcnts that the dcfcndants
conspircd to slandcr and lihel thc plaintiff: inllict severc punishmcnt, and perform various other
nlleged wrongdoings. These arc once ngain hald conclusions without nny !llCtualunderpinning
und therefore the dcfendunts' prcliminary o~jectionus to count II of the complaint is gtantcd,
The plaintiff's frnudlllcnt misrepresentntion claim (count 1tI) and frnud hy use of the
United States Postal Scrvice (count V) must ulso lilil. The clements of fruud arc us follows:
"there must be ( I) a fraudulent misrepresentation; (2) u fraudulentutleruncc thcreof; (3) un
intention by the mukcr (hat the rccipient will thcreby he induced to Ul't; (4) justil1ahlc rcliunce by
the recipicnt upon the misrepresentation; und (5) damage to the recipient as a pl'Oximatc rcsult."
Delahan1Lv. First Pcnnsylvania B.!nk, 318 Pa, Super. 90, 108,464 A.2d 1243, 1252 (Pa. Super,
C'L 1(83).
Thc plaintiff has failed 10 allcge any fill'ts to support a claim thllt any ol'the various
del'endants intentionally induced him to act, that he justil1ahly relied upon any
misreprl'sentalions hy the del'endanls, or thai any misrepresenllllion causcd him to sulTcr dumugc.
Counts III and V of thc complainlmcrely recyclc the same eonelllsionary statemcnts contuincd
II
I/~
f""
t"'"
99.) 13 CIVIL
within thc VlIrlOUS othcr counts ol'thc compluint. Theretclre, thc defendants' prcliminary
o~iections to counts III ,lIld V urc gl'llnted.
Thc defendants' prdiminllry ol~icction to the pluintilfs ncgligcncc c1uim (count IV) is
also grantcd. As prcviously discusscd, locul govc/'lllllent employees urc immune to ncgligence
claims buscd on injurics caused by acts pcrlc)rmcd within the Sl'ope of thc cmployees' dutics,
unlcss thc ncgligcnt acts filii within onc of the eight exccptions listed in Scction 8542. 42
l'a.C.S.A. Section 8542, 85'15. TIll' plaintiffs complaintmakcs nu mcntion of any spccific
ncgligcnt acts that filII outside thc seopc of the employecs' official dutics, nor docs it allcgc any
ncgligcnt ucts that would lilll within one of the eight listcd exccptions to officilll immunity.
Thc defendants havc also tilcd a prcliminary ohjection the plaintirt"s claim for
"cmotional distrcss" (count VI). It is unclcar fl'Omthe plaintiffs complaint whcthcr thc plaintiff
is asscrting an intcntionul or ncgligl'nt infliction of elTlotionlll distrcss c1l1im. Undcr 42 PlI.C.S.A.
Scction 8545, negligcnt infliction of elTlotional distrcss docs notlilll within onc ofthc cight
l~xccptions to oflicial immunity fC1r local govcrnmcnt agency cmployees. Thcrcforc thc plllintiff
has no causc of uction fClr ncgligent infliction of emotional distrcss.
Intcntional infliction ofemotionlll distress is lItort rc\:Ognized hy the courts of
Pennsylvania. McNcal v. City of Easton, 143 I'a. ('ommw. 151. 156,598 A,2d (,38, 640 (Pa,
Commw. Ct, 1991), To state u calise of action tilr intentional infliction of cmotional distrcss, thc
plaintiff must allege: ( I ) extreme and outragcous conduct on thc part of thc defendants; (2)
intcntional 01' recklcss conduct: (3) thc condact must cause emotional distrcss; (4) and the
distress must he severe, ]<essler v. Monsour, 865 !'.Supp. 234, 241 (M,D. I'll. 1994). Thc
complllint tilils tOllllcgc facts thatllny oflhe individual dcfendants cngagcd in outrngcous
eondul,t, or tlllll tl1\'f\' WlIS conduct tlmt was intentionlll 01' recklcss. Undcr count VI, the
7
115
-J ~
" C:l 'rf ~.
~
iL~ In ......
;", .. II\, i:
\.11 ~-~, '<-'-~ 0
i l" 0
\ ~
"
Crl , ~
{-.-.l ~
,. \
pt'
".! (,';, <J ex:.
lL '&;.
~.~
I' ('1"\
('1 c!\
I
.,
PVS510
1999-00314
Cumbw.iJ.and County Prothonotsry' 8-'lffice Page
~Civi1 Csse Inquiry ~
SGRIGNOLI RODGER E JR (vs) EAST PENNSBORO AREA SCHOOL DIB
1
-<. .....f..
Ref.erence No" 1
Csse Type.,. ,.1 COMPLAINT
Judgment..., ,.1 .00
Judge Assignedl HESS KEVIN A
Disposed Desc.:
------------ Csse Comments ------..-_..___
**.*....................................................*............~.........*
General Index Attorney Info
SGRIGNOLI RODGER E JR PLAINTIFF PRO SE
11 NORTH ENOLA DRIVE
ENOLA PA 17025
EAST PENNSBORO AREA SCHOOL 01
STRICT
ZEHNER GLENN W DR
3 CHARISMA DRIYE
CAMP HILL PA 7011
CAPPRIO~TI CAROLE A
2118 CANTEBURY DRIVE
MECHANICSBURG PA 17055
GREENE MARCIA
UNKNOWN
PIERCE MR
UNKNOWN
EAST PENNSBORO AREA SCHOOL
BOARD
890 VALLEY STREET
ENOLA PA 17025
FILIPPELLI ANTHONY J
107 MILLER STREET
SUMMERDALE PA 17093
SCHMICK PATTY J
120 TEAKWOOD LANE
ENOLA PA 17025
ALBRIGHT RANDOLF C
710 CARRIAGE LANE
MECHANICSBURG PA 17055
BIDDLE JAMES N
12 WOBURN ABBEY AVENUE
CAMP HILL PA 17011
DYSON JILL S
1'/ SUNFIRE LANE
CAMP HILL PA 17011
OTSTOT NANCY K
108 MOUNTAINVIEW DRIVE
ENOLA PA 17025
FRANCHANK STEVEN .1
911 ACRI ROAD
MECHANICSBURG PA
PUNT BRIAN A
42 PINE RIDGE COURT
ENOLA PA 17025
BROOKS KERRY J
12 COVENTRY CLOSE
CAMP HILL PA 17011
DR
17055
Filed.. .. .. ..:
T me. ~,. . . . .. I
EXeCUtixn Date
Jur~ Tr a1....
Cis ose Date.
Hig er Crt 1.:
Hig or Crt 2.:
1/19/HU
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
DEFENDAN'I'
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
................................................................................
· Date Entl"ies .
...................*....*.......................................................
-.
/I~
. ..l?1~510
1999-00314
Cumb~nd County ProthonotarY'sri~fice Page
. Civil Case Inquiry ,
SGRIGNOLI RODGER E JR (VS) EAST PENNSBORO AREA SCHOOL DIS
2
Reference No. . :
Case Type, , , . . I COMPLAINT
.)'Udgment 'I' , . . I .00
Judge Ass glledl HESS KEVIN A
Disposed Desc. I
----..----..-- Case Comments -_________.._.
..................**..**......**..***......**....**.***************.*..****...**
· Escrow Information .
· Fees & Debits Beu Bal Pvmts/Adi End Bal .
**..................*.****..**.****..*.**_..***.,......**..........*............
1/19/1999
2/011/1999
3/05/1999
3/08/1999
3/31/1999
4/05/1999
6/10/1999
6/21/1999
7/09/1999
COMPLAINT
TAX ON CMPLT
SETTLEMENT
JCP FEE
-------------
F i 1 ad. . . . . . . . :
'rime....... ..:
Execution Date
Jury Trial. . . ,
Disposed Date,
Higher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
---------
-.~---
1/19/1999
1:29
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
FIRST ENTRY
COMPLAINT .. CIVIL ACTION
----------------~---_._------_..._------------------------------------
PRRI,IMINARY OBJEC'rIONS OF DEFENDANTS '1'0 COMPLAIN1' OF RODGER
SGRIGNOLI JR
-------.------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S MO'I'ION TO STRIKE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Of' JAMES K
THOMAS II TO COMPLAINT OF RODGER SGRIGNOLI JR AND PLAINTIFF'S
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
OF JAMES K THOMAS II TO COMPLAINT OF RODGER SGRIGNOLI JR PENDING
RULING ON THIS MOTION TO STRIKE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
------_..._------------------------------~---------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF SERVICE OF COMPLAINT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT BY RODGER E SGRIGNOLI JR
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS
AND PLAINTII'f' S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DR GLENN W
ZEHNER INDIVIDUALLY AND EAST PENNSBORO AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
----------------------_.._-----_.._---------~._---_._------------------
PRAECIPE F'OR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT BY DOUGLAS B MARCELLO ESQ
DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
----------..--.-------.-----------------------------------------------
ORDER - DATED 6/10/99 - IN RE OBJECTIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF TO THE
PRELIMINARY OBJEC~IONS OF THE DEFENDANTS - DENIED - BY KEVIN A HESS
J - COPIES MAILED 6/11/99
--.---------------------.---------------------------.-----------------
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS TO
COMPLAINT OF RODGER SGRIGNOLI .JR
--------------------.---------------------------------.--------------
ORDER - DATED 7/9/99 - IN RE DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT - GRANTED - THE COMPLAINT DISMISSED _ BY
KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 7/9/99
- - - - - - - - .. - - - - - LAST ENTRY
---.-----------
35.00 35.00
.50 .50
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
------------------------
45.50 45.50
.00
.00
,00
,00
------------.
.00
.*.*.................*...*...........**........**.....*...*..................'...
· . End of Case Information . .
.***..~*..*.*............*...*....*....*...*****...*.*........*.*...............
...r
Jd.O
00
.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NOTICE OF DOCKETING APPEAL
7f31(
Docket No: 2534 C,D. 1999 Filed Date: 09/30/99
Deemed Received: 08/02/99
Re: SGRIGNOLI JR. v. ZEHNER et al.
Lower Court No.: 99-314
A Notice of Appeal, a copy of which is enclosed, from an order of
your Court has been docketed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
The docket number in the Commonwealth Court is endorsed on this notice.
The Commonwealth Court docket number must be on all correspondence
and documents filed with the Court.
Under Chapter 19 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate ProcedUre,
the Notice of Appeal has the effect of directing the Court to transmit
the certified record in the matter to the Prothonotary of the
Commonwealth Court,
The complete record, including the opinion of the trial Judge,
should be forwarded to the Commonwealth Court within forty (40) days
of the date of filing of the Notice of Appeal. Do not transmit a
partial record.
Pa. R.A.P. 1921 to 1933 provides the standards for preparation,
certification and transmission of the record.
The address to which the Court is to tt:ansmit the record is set
forth on page 2 of this notice.
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
A copy of this notice is being sent to all parties or counsel
indicated on the proof of service accompanying the Notice of Appeal,
The appearance of all counsel has been entered on the record in the
Commonwealth Court. Counsel has thirty (30) days from the date of
filing of the Notice of Appeal to file a praecipe to withdraw their
appearance pursuant to Pa. R.A,P. 907(b).
Appellant or Appellant's attorney should review the record of the
trial court, in order to insure that it is complete, prior to
certification to this Court. (Note: A copy of the Zoning Ordinance
must accompany records in Zoning Appeal cases).
The addresses to which you are to transmit documents to this Court
are set forth on Page 2 of this Notice.
If you have special needs, please contact this court in writing as
soon as possible.
Lower Court Judge: Honorable Kevin A. Hess
Attorney: Rodger E, Sgrignoli Jr.
Attorney: Douglas S. Marcello
Attorney: James Kenneth Thomas
Notices Exit: 10/08/99 Prothonotary
...
~ .
Rodger E, Sgrlgl1oll, Jr,
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
. PENNSYLVANIA
V,
(C,P, Cumberland Co\mly
No. 99-314)
East Pel1nsboro Area School District, et at.
No. 1353 MDA, 1999
Filed: SeptembeL 28
,1999
ORnER
Appellees' motion to transfer this appeal to Commonwealth Court is GRANTED,
See Pa.R,A.P. 751; BI'ady Con/rac/illg Co. .', West Mal/c"es/er Twp. Sewer AII/"., 487
A.2d 894 (Pa, Super, 1985) (legislature vested exclnsive appellate jurisdiction in
Commonwealth Court in tort ac.lions brought against a local government party, and such
jurisdiction extends to all parties as long as at least one party is a local agency and the
case is govemed at least in part by the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa. C,S,
~~ 8541-8564), 011 transfer, 508 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Cmwlth, 1986); 42 Pa. C.S. ~ 762(a)(7);
see also Coco Bros" rl/C. .'. T"e Board of P/lb. Ed/lc. Of t"e Sel,. Dis/. Of Pg"., 546
A.2d 412 (Pa, Super, 1989) (school districts are within the meaning of the tenn "political
subdivisions"), on trails fer, 568 A.2d 309 (Pa, Cmwlth, 1989).
Per Curiam
TRUE COpy FROM RBCORD
Auoat; 9/29/99
)-)P~ (-., I..f:i ,
C lj. ,
,'.'.:;
~(! I , n
UII :')
"/
~Ij 'i I
,
I i
.
, .J
pl J\\\; , I
,. L:j ( ,ill
tpr\i\\ q ~: :.j .,
<-.,') :,j
l\)
I /4 -,
\~)
I't'n!;honot.llry' H
IlIqulr'y
1999uOO]14 1-:UHIUNoLI HOIl(a-:1l I'; ,J/l (VH) ";M;'I' PI';NNSUOHO MU:II. I,CIIOOI, Ill:;
,
HldonHlce No..:
CIIHO 'I'YI-)(~" , . ': COMPI.^ I NT
.1,,<1')1111'11 -. . , . . , : .00
.Iud"" AHHJq"l'<I: liE:;:; KI';VIN ^
DlspDHod DWle.:
C{IHP CCHllllllJllLH
PHEI, I M 1 NMIY OIl,J/:C'I'ION:; 0(0' DEFI':NIl^N'I'H '1'0 C(lMI'L^ I N'I' OF HODOEH
SGllI GNOL I ,IH
1/0!iIl999 PI,^,N'/'II'I";; MOTION '/'0 S'/'HIKE PIH:I.JMIN^HY OB.J/;C'I'IONS 01' .J^MI';S K
'I'IIOMM; II '1'0 COMI'L^'N'I' OF IWD(;IW SGfOGNOLI .IH ^ND I'L^'N'I'II'I"S
RI';QUES'I' I'OH I';X'I'ENSION OF 'I'IME '1'0 ImSPOND '1'0 I'HEI,IMINMIY OIUEC'l'lOr
OF .I^MI';S K '1'1I0M^S f I 'I'D COMf'I,^IN~' Of' HODGER SGllIGNOLI .11l PENDING
Ill/LING ON '!'IllS .MO'l'ION '1'0 S'PHIKE PIlELIMINMlY OJ],mCTIONS.
PAm .
1-54--
55-74
1/19/1999
2IOU/1999
75-80
81..94
95-96
:1/08/1999
.In 111999
97 4/0!i/1999
98-99 (,/10/1999
100-10(, (i/21/1999
107-] 16 7/o9/199'j
117-120 1I/0tl1999
121-122 <i/nl/IUQ()
,.'
r:OMPL^ I N'I'
I"IIW'I' EN'I'IIY
1"110:1.. , . ., " :
'I' J III (~, . . . . . , , . :
";X(!('ul.lon Ditto
,JUI'Y '1'1' Jrll. . . .
III HllOHnd Dilt.",
1I'l/ IOJ' CI'!; 1.:
IIlqlwr Ct.!; 2.:
1/1911 '
I
OioO/OI
0/00/01
r:IVI L M:TION
PI,^,N'I'H'I-"S NO'l'ICI'; 01-' SEIlVICE OF COMPIAIN'I'
PHM;C I PI': 1-'011 1.1 S'I' I NG C^SE FOH ^,mUMEN'I' IIY 1l0D(WH I'; SGH IGNOLI .Irl
PL^,N'I'fI'F'S MO'I'ION '1'0 S'I'/OKE PIU.;r.IMIN^HY Oll./EC'I'IONS OF m:FEND^N'1'1
^NIl I'L^ I N'I' 11-'1-" S MOT I ON FOil IlEF^I/L'J' JLJDGMEN'I' M:^ I NS'I' Illl GLENN W
ZI':IINI';H INIJIVIIJU^"LY ^ND E^S'I' PENNSUOIIO ^,U;^ SCIIOOL IJIS'I'HIC'I'
I'IlM:C II'E FOil L [:;'1' I NG C^SE FOil ^,IGlIMEN'[' BY IJOl/(;L^S II M^llCELI,o (';SQ
IJEI'[-:NIJ^N'I'S' I'HELI M 1 N^,lV OIUEC'I'IONS
. - - - -. - - .. ~ - .. -, -. -"... -. .. -. - .- - - -- .. -.- .- - - - - -.
OIUlF:U ' 1JA'I'IW (,/10/99 - IN nE OBJEC'l'IONS OF 'I'HI'; PL^INTH'F' 1'0 THE
PIU:LIMIN^,lY OIl,)[o:C'I'IONS OF' '1'111': DF:i"END^NTS DENIED - BY KEVIN A HI
.1 COI'II';S M^ILlm 6/11/99
--'. ---.._-- - --.-.----.--------....- --..------.-.--------
I'LAIN'I'IFI"S In;SI'ON~a; '1'0 PIli':LIMINAIlY OB,JEC'I'IIlNS Ill' D1':I'ENO^N'I'S TO
COMI'L^IN'I' OF IWllr:i';1l S(;HIGNOI,I ,IR
OIlBI':n 1lA'1'IW '//~/99 IN Ill': IJI';I"I';NIl^N'I'S' I'IU;LIMIN^,lY OB.JEC'I'IONS '[
I'LAIN'I'II'F'~; Cm1l'L^I N'[' G1l^N'I'EIJ '['lIE COMI'L^IN'I' IJISMISSI':D BY
KEVIN ^ 11I-;:;::./ COI'II';S MAJLIW '//9/99
I'LAIN'I'IIT':; NUTlet-: Ill" ^I'I'I':^L '1'0 SLJI'I':1l101l COli 1<'1' FIWM OIWI';H ";N'I'EH":I
'//9/')~ BY IWIlGl;1l 1-; :;GIlIGNOLI ./i{ 1'1l0 SE
1-':1/1""'1 rnll {'n/fU'I' (IF "^ NCl'III('I;: ril.' l\PPI;:hJ. nOCKWl'j Nn 'I'D H I.l!l.l MD^ 99
"1/(. .,
) I', ""IIf!
fif/'f 'Ut
"1'11
"f)/,
,hit,!
(It:,~
7'0..
COI
1111I
OIl
If'('lll .
II, C
Oil
O 1'1
CIO O/' JI
ber ('f1
18 f11i
, <DO 'J'/I'I'
'0 II/II
-......
1>'1, (
~~:
8Gfi
"'0.2, fG^"o
... '53 ~I
Ir/~1 '1 CD JR
7'rl. C. 19'~>
111 C Ollrt;, 99 <.~f.t,
Is Ollr/l-1 "lgel/ 'IV!::"!?
~ ~~ g~c ~D ~~
C ellllre aJre(/ I. 'Y "'ftrr, 'lrl. "'1I .
Ollt rac 'Ier. 0' C 7r}b
o 'IIt or(/ r. elo IJ . lI"'be er..
'lgllI~1 . 0' Q Or Il1e lIrsllCi "'''fld
0"" ~""'" 'Ig"O! ..",~ " ~ .........
of ~, . It"" ~""o ""'I/,~""''' 0."", J fit
rr,~1I 'a,.' I/~I/I~ 0' C
. Of ~, ~I/'" ......
Cor(/. Of ~ "
. 'PP13II~t
PI/. e Pro
a(/ D cact.
q~ lI~
<07,
~I/(j
<87<
I "I ,/~{j
'''I ,II
/llllf, (I.\'/
v. I' 171
7,'" I .
7'''11 710h
. '/65()
(j~III/{l ~'Ic/.
, ~II(/ r. OSa(j .
alll IS q
'II/, I/~
I'/g 111 (/(/II/.
fie Of!
flc/, 111 c
oSe Opy
(/ Co Of 1.1.
'Py I. 'Ie
o Il}e Cart/fie
PrOl11 qle. p
OIlOI~/eosa
y Ofr. ~Ck
7ca 1I0W/,
0, II} e(/"
e C~e ra
'l}laf C cefpl b
Ye'Ir' :Y s/,
.S Off/, '{JI/III,.
ceo ~,
Das
Crlpl/
lOll
C07r}
7r}01l
Wa
qllll
COli
rtPiIin
gO",.
ICe
,.
I')
,
I;,
,
~
~ql. '.
e .
,
'.
. ,
I
. 'f
It
pull up the finish on the floors, It is disputed as to whether Appellant was
infonned of this before he placed the tape, It is also disputed as to whether
Appellant engaged in abusive words with a school custodian, named Mrs. Greene
who informed Appellant at least after the tape was placed on the floor already that
he was not pennitted to place tape thereon, R,R. at 34.
On February 27, 1998, Dr. Glenn Zehner, Superintendent of the
District sent a letter to "MI', Rodger Sgrignoli" in which Dr. Zehner wrote:
It is my understanding that you chose to disregard the
request from our school staff when they asked you not to
place duct tape on your gym floor at the East Pennsboro
Elementary School. I was told that you became verbally
abusive and continued to place the duct tape on the floor.
The staff member whe. talked with you has eamed a great
deal of respect from our administration and has the
responsibility to enforce the rules of the maintenance for
that building.
The school district provides these facilities to the East.
Pennsboro Youth Athletic League [EPY AL] for the
welfare of our students. Your brhavior was inappropriate
and certainly did not set a good example for our students,
For this reason, you will not be pennitted to attend
activities on school property unless they are
educationally related for one year from this date.
Educational activities would include parent/teacher
conference and open houses in the buildings,
R.R. at 25.26, This letter was carbon copied to, among others, the local township
police chief, the school board members and the president of the EPY AL through
which Appellant volunteered to run the tournament. On March 2, 1998, Appellant
requested a hearing before the School Board to appeal his being banned from
2
school property, R,R. at 28, On April 21, 199H, a previously agreed upon mel~ting
took place which was taped and subsllquelltly transcribed, At this Illeeting, where
Appellant was able to question Mrs, Ureelle IInd IInother custodian who was also
present on the evening of Ihe illcllllmt, 1>1', Zehnl'r oft\:red to !ill the ban on
Appellant if he would apologize to Mrs, Grel'IIl', IUt al 37. reeling that he did
nothing wrong, Appellallt declincd tOllpologlze, IUt at 39.
On January 20, I 99lJ, Appellant pm se instituted this suit. He named
as defendants Dr. Zehner, lhe I >ISII'lcl, mcmbers of the School Board of the
District, Mrs. Gl'l~enl', as well as others, In his sclt~dralled complaint he includes
six counts, including liblll, wnspirucy, Ihludulenl misrepresentation, negligence,
fraud by use of the llniled Statl:s Postlll Sl:rvice, and infliction of emotional
distress. The defendants filed preliminary ohjections to the complaint. Appellant
filed preliminary objections to the defendants' preliminary objections. The trial
court dismissed Appellant's preliminary objections to the defendants' preliminary
ohjections. Then the trial court sustained the defendants' preliminary objections to
the complaint and dismissed it. Frolll the trial court's order dismissing the
complaint, Appellant appellls pro se to this court.
Appellate review of an ordl~r of the trial court involving preliminary
objections in the nature or a demurrer is limited to detemlining whether the trial
court abused its discretion 01' cOlllmitted IIn error of IllW.Llll'ty 12tt& Associates v,
l&w:, 716 A,2d 695 (I'a, ('lI1wllh. 199H), In doing so, we accept as true all well
pleaded allegations of llllltcrilll tilct in tile complaint and any jnf~'rences reasonably
deducible therefrom, hI, Ilnwevl:r, II ('Ourt need not llccept any of a complaint's
conclusions of 11Iw or IIrgunwntutivc 1I1I(~gllti(lllS, ~Lv, HQ[Il, 554 Pa. 600, 722
A,2d 664 (I 99H), Mel'pling liS true nil well-pleaded material facts and the
3
reasonable inferences deducible therefrom, the question presented by a demurrer is
whether the law says with certainty that no recovery is possible. lochen v. Hom,
727 A.2d 645 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). While pleadings filed by pro se litigants are to
be construed liberally, a pro se litigant is not to be given any particular advantage
because of his lack of knowledge of the law. Mueller v, Pennsvlvania StatePolicl(
Headquarters, 532 A.2d 900, 902 (Pa. Cmwlth, 1987).
Viewing the complaint in light of the foregoing standards, the heart of
the factual avennent in Appellant's complaint is stated by Appellant as follows:
At the aforementioned meeting [Le" April 21, 1998), the
accusers [Le., Mrs. Greene and the second custodian)
invalidated the charges of the published facts [Le., that
Appellant was asked not to put duct tape down and that
he subsequently ignored this request and that Appellant
became verbally abusive with Mrs. Greene) as stated by
the Defendants, proving egregious conduct on behalf of
the Defendants and that they did with willful, wanton and
reckless disregard actively with knowledge and
forethought conspire to libel Sgrignoli through a series of
slanderous accusations, through negligent actions,
without any findings of fact, hearing or other arbitrary
process, convicting and sentencing him to extraordinary
and severe punishment, and administering punishment
from unsubstantiated charges by use of the United States
Mail causing emotional distress and irreparable damages
to SgrignolL
Appellant's complaint at ~14, RR, at 7. Reading the complaint with all reasonable
inferences deducible therefrom, it appears that Appellant is alleging that Dr.
Zehner's sending of the February 27, 1998 letter constituted libel. Moreover, based
on this letter, Appellant alleges that not only Dr. Zehner but all of the Defendants
libeled him, conspired to libel him, made fraudulent misrepresentations, engaged in
negligent conduct, used the United States mail to conduct fraud and engaged in
either intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress.
4
Appellant pl'l'Sl'nts Sl'\'l'n qUl'slions for rl'view, We will deal only with
those questions necl'ssaty 10 dispOSl' of this caSl',
The first qlwSI/OIl we address is "Did the District Court [sic, meaning
the trial court] err 01' ahusl' its disl'rl'tion or readl a manifestly unreasonahle, biased
or prejudiced result whcn ilasserted thaI plaintif'llappellllnt's service of process was
defectivl~?" Appellant's hril'f at 14. The trial court noted that
I w lilh one cxception, the plaintiff's service of
process is patt'nlly defeclive, There was an acceptance of
sl'rVlee, as allowed tllldcr Pa, R.C.P. Rule 402,11) hy
I I'u, R,C,P, No, 402 I'ro"idc~ them und now that
(u) Originul p/'O('css may he served
(I) hy hunding u copy to the defeadunt; or
(2) hy hunding u copy
(i) at the residence of the defendant to an adult member of the family
with whom he reaidea; but if no adult member of the family ia found, then to an
adult person in charge of such residence; or
(ii) ut the residence of the defendant to the elerk or manager of the hotel,
inn, upurtment house, hoarding house or other place of lodging at which he
resides; or
(iii) ut uny ofljee or uSllul place ofbllsiness of the defendant to his agent
or to the person for the time heing ill ehargc thereof,
(b) Inliell of ser"ll'e under this rule, the defendant or his authorized agent
muy accepl service of originul proccss by filing a separate document which shall
he suhstantiully in the follOWing form:
(Cuption)
Acceplunce of Service
accept service of the (on behalf of
"'-"-'~,_,___, and certify that I am authorized to do so).
~..-.......,~-------~--~--
(Datc)
(Defendant or Authorized Agent)
(Mailing Address)
(Footnote continued on next page...)
-~.'..~_._--~-----
5
defendants East Pennsboro Area School District, Zehncr,
Punt and Schmick. Howevcr, scrvice of thc complaint as
to the various other defendants was attempted via mail.
Pursuant to Pa, R.C.P. Rule 400, service of process is to
be done by the sheriff, and pursuant to Pa,R.C.P. Rule
403, service of original process by mail is permitted only
in certain circumstances. No aspect of the plaintiff's
complaint falls within one of those categories where
service of process by mail is proper and therefore the
service of process as to the remaining defendants is
defective.
Trial court's slip op. at 3. Appellant argues that the trial courts factual premise is
erroneous. We cannot detect any legal error or abuse of discretion in the trial
court's holding in this regard,
As this court has noted before, our Supreme Court has stated that the
rules regarding service of original process must be strictly complied with. Burger
v, Borough of Ingram, 697 A.2d 1037, 1040-41 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997), citing, Shall>
L~I Center, 422 Pa. 124,221 A,2d 185 (1966). Those rules
require service of OIiginal process by the sheriff except in limited circumstances,
not here applicable.2 The trial court found that the rules were not complied with.
(continued...)
Note
The plaintiff should insert in the first blank the name of the
document being accepted, i.e. writ of summons or complaint.
When accepting service in person, the defendant would delete the
part of the sentence in parcntheses.
2 At the time of the institution of this suit, Pa.R.C.P. No, 400 provided:
(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c) and in Rules 400, I
[dealing with actions commenced in the First Judicial District] and 1930.4
[dealing with service in domestic relations matters], original process shall be
served within the Commonwealth only by the sheri ff.
(Footnote continued on next page...)
6
Indeed, Appellant does not contend that any of the exceptions thai were found in
Pa, R.C.P. No. 400 (b) or (c) apply, Nor does Appellant contend that personal
service was attempted by the sheriff. Appellant merely avers that that service was
attempted by his "server" and that the defendants refused service of the complaint
so then Appellant "served" the other defendants by mail. However, Pa. R,C.P. 403
provides that service of original process may be made by mail only "[i]f a ntle of
civil procedure authorizes original process to be served by mail..." Here Appellant
fails to point to any rule of civil. procedure which authorizes service of original
process by mail in this case. Appellant also suggests that the defendants possessed
actual knowledge of the fact that suit had been instituted and such was sufficient.
We disagree,
The rules of service must be strictly complied with. Burger. It is only
by proper service of original process that a COUlt gains personal jurisdiction over a
defendant. Sba(p v. Valley Fome M~dical Center, The mere fact that a defendant
may have actual knowledge of the institution of a suit against him does not
otherwise cure defective service of original process, See Burger, 697 A.2d at
(continued...)
(b) In addition to service by the sheriff, original process may be served
also by a competent adult who is not a party in the following actions: equity,
partition, prevent waste, and declaratory judgment when declaratory relief is the
only relief sought.
(c) When the sheriff is a party to the action, original process shall be
served by the coroner or other officer authorized by law to perfoml the dUlies of
coroner.
(d) Ifservice is to be made by the sheriff in a county other than the county
in which the action was commenc(~d, the sheriff of the county where service may
be made shall be deputized for that purpose by the sheriff of the county where the
action was commenced.
7
I04().41 (notwithstanding the fhct that two of thc namcd dcfcnda1lts were alleged
to have been "aware of and had acknowledged the fact that they wcrc defcndants
in" the suit, this court affirmed the trial court's ordcr excluding thcm as defcndants
because therc was no evidence that proper service of original process was
effectuated). The trial court found that service of process was defective with
regard to all the defendants other than East Pennsboro Area School District,
Zehner, Punt and Schmick. Appellant failed to show this case was one wherein
service by mail was authorized by a rule of civil procedure. Actual knowledge of
the institution of a suit does not serve to cure improper service of original process,
We do, therefore, affinn the u;al court's order regarding all the defendants other
than the four above named.
The next question raised by Appellant is: "Did the District Court [trial
court] err or abuse its discretion or reach a manifestly unreasonable biased or
prejudiced result when it granted governmental immunity although AppelIant
submitted prima. facie evidence" to show that 42 Pa. C.S. ~8550 was applicable to
this case? Appellant's brief at 14. The trial court held that the popularly calIed
Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA) shields the District from any
liability. Section 8541 of the PSTCA provides that "[e]xcept as otherwise
provided in this subchapter, no local agency shall be liable for any damages on
account of any injury to a person or property caused by any act of the local agency
or an employee thereof or any person." The trial court found that Appellant failed
to allege any of the exceptions to immunity were applicable and therefore, held
that the District, as a local agency was immune. Appellant argues that 42 Pa. c.s.
~8550 is applicable. That section provides as follows:
[i]n any action against a local agency or employee
thereof for damages on account of an injury caused by
8
the act of the employee in which it is judicially
determined that the act of the employee caused the injury
and that such act constituted a crime, actual fraud, actual
malice, or willful misconduct, the provisions of Section
8545 (relating to official liability generally), 8546
(relating to defense of official immunity), 8548 (relating
to indemnity) and 8549 (relating to limitation on
damages) shall not apply.
Appellant erroneously intimates that because he alleged willful misconduct on the
part of employees of the District, Section 8550 abrogates the District's immunity,
This is not correct. See, k.g., Citv of Philadelphia v. Bro~, 618 A,2d 1236 (Pa,
Cmwlth. I 992)(Section 8550 only abrogates an employee's immunity afforded by
the PSTCA but not the local agency's immunity), Accordingly, the trial court's
sustaining of the District's preliminar; objection on this ground is affirmed.
The next question we address is did "the District Court [trial court] err
or abuse its discretion or reach a manifestly unreasonable, biased, or prejudiced
result when it granted governmental immunity even though prima facie evidence
was submitted showing that a custodian was off.duty and that Superintendent of
Schools [Dr . Zehner] acted outside his jurisdiction by administering sanctions after
the President of the Youth League ... refused to administer such sanctions?"
Appellant's brief at 14. The trial court held that
[a]n employee of a local government is liable for
personal injuries caused by acts of the employee
performed within the scope of his office or duties only to
the same extent as the local government agency. 42 Pa.
C.S.A. Section 8545. The plaintiff [Appellant] has not
alleged any facts in the complaint that show that any of
the school district employees named as defendants in this
action acted outside the scope of their duties as
employees of East Pennsboro Are School District.
Therefore, in order for the claims against the individuals
to survive the defendants['] preliminary objections, the
plaintiff must either allege negligent acts by the
defendant employees that fall within one of the eight
9
exceptions to immunity listed in Scction X542(b), or
allegc facts that thc cmployccs' acts wnstitutcd a crimc,
actual fraud, actual malice, or willful misconduct in
which case the dcfcnse of official il11l1lunityis waivcd.
42 Pa. C.SA Section 8550.
Trial court slip op, at pp. 4-5, We agree with thc trial court's rationale, Insofar as
Appellant's complaint fails to allege any facts whatsocver rcgarding dcfcndants
Punk and Schmick, let alonc facts allcging that they acted outside the scopc of thcir
office or duties or that such actions fell within any of the exccptions to immunity
provided in 42 Pa. C.S, ~8542(b), thcir preliminary objections were properly
sustainecl, We note that Appellant in his brief to this court only argues that
defendants Greene and Zehner acted outside the scope of their dutics. Appellant's
brief at pp, 22-23. Thus, to the extent that Appellant had meant to allegc as error
the trial court's sustaining of Punk's and Schmick's preliminary objections based on
Appellant's failure to allege facts showing that they acted outside the scope of their
employment, we find Appellant has waived any such argument. Accordingly, the
trial court's order sustaining the preliminary objections of defendants Punk and
Schmick is affirmed,
Finally we come to Appellant's arguments that the preliminary
objections filed on behalf of Dr, Zehner were improperly sustained. There were
six counts listed in Appellant's complaint. As to the negligencl' counl, the trial
court did not err in sustaining Dr, Zehner's preliminary objections. Because the
negligence count could legally only aver negligence and Dr. Zehncr is entitled to
immunity for negligent conduct under the PSTCA, Dr, Zehner would be entitled to
immunity unless there was an exception. Appellant alleged no exception to
immunity provided in 42 Pa. C.S, ~8542(b), Notwithstanding Appellant's bare
legal avennent that Dr, Zehner actcd outside the scope of his employment so as to
10
render the immunity afforded by PSTCA inapplicable, see 42 Pa, C,S. *8546. we
are not required to accept such legal conclusions. S.ll11111 v. Horn, The mere fact
that Dr. Zehner attempted to get Appellant's superiors in the Youth Athletic League
to take action regarding Appr-lIant does not compel the legal conclusion that such
actions lire beyond the scope of Dr. Zehner's employment. Thus, the negligent
count was properly dismissed.
As for the conspiracy to commit libel count, it too was properly
dismissed. To prove civil conspiracy, one must prove: I) a combination of two or
more persons acting with a common purpose to do an unlawful act or to do a
lawful act by unlawful means or for an unlawful purpose; 2) an overt act done in
furtherance of the common purpose; and 3) actual legal damage. SttickklKLY.
University of Scranton, 700 A.2d 979 (Pa. Super. 1997). Here, even giving the
Appellant's complaint a liberal reading, it fails to allege sufficient facts that Dr,
Zehner's actions in writing and sending the letter was accomplished by him and
another acting with a common purpose to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act
by unlawful means. At most, the complaint infers only Dr. Zehner acted with such
a purpose in regards to the assertedly libelous letter,
As to the fraud count, it too was properly dismissed. Proof of fraud
requires: I) a misrepresentation; 2) an utterance thereof; 3) an intention by the
maker of the utterance that the recipient will be induced to act 4) justifiable
reliance by the recipient upon the misrepresentation and 5) damage to the
recipient as a proximate result. Edmondson v. Zetusj(y, 674 A.2d 760 (Pa,
Cmwlth. 1996), Here the complaint fails to aver any facts regarding justifiable
reliance by Appellant on Dr, Zehner's alleged misrepresentation. Hence, the
II
countrcgarding fraud by the United States mail likcwise fails, as thcl'c Was no
fraud sufficiently averrcd,
As to thc cmotional distrcss claim, we agrec with thc trial court, The
trial court observcd that it was not clear from the complaint whether Appellant was
alleging negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, To the extent that
the complaint allcged negligent infliction of emotional distress by Dr, Zehner, such
negligence would fall within the immunity protection of the PSTCA because there
are no exceptions averred or applicable herein.
If on the other hand, Appellant is alleging intentional infliction of
emotional distress, it is not entirely clear that this Commonwealth recognizes such
a cause of action. See, ~, Kelly v, Resource t10usilllz Inc., 615 A.2d 423, 426
(Pa. Super. 1992), citing, Kazalli.k.Y-..Y, King David Memorial Park, 515 Pa, 183,
197, 527 A.2d 988, 995 (I 987)("The tort has not been adopted and made a part of
the law of Pennsylvania."). SM ~ mlor v. Albert Einstrin..Mediw. Center, __
Pa, _' _ A.2d __' 2000 WL 630999 at p"'2 (No. 33 E.D, Appcal Dkt. 1999, May
17, 2000)("Although we have never expressly recognized a cause of action for
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and thus have never formally adopted
this section [i,e., 46J of the Restatement [Second of TortsJ, we have cited this
section as setting forth the minimum elements nccessary to sustain such a cause of
action,") But ~ McNcal v, City of Easton, 598 A.2d 638, 640 (Pa. Cmwlth,
1991 )("this court concludes that the tort of intentional infliction of emotional
distress is recognized by Pennsylvania courts."), Assuming arguendo, such a
cause of action does exist, to establish intentional infliction of emotional distress, it
would be neccssary to aver that I) defendants engaged in extreme and outrageous
conduct; 2) that was intentional or reckless 3) which causes emotional distress to
12
the plaintiff. See Tavlor v. Albert Einstein iv..kd.i.c.ill; Kr~'i1ldj'....Mo.ngl!!r, 865 F,
Supp, 2~4, 241, (M.D. Pa, 1994). The gravamUl1 of the tort is outrageous conduct
on the part of the lortfeasor, KazatskLv, King Duvid~, "It is for the
court to detemline in the first instance, whether the defendant's conduct may
reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to pennit recovery",,"
Restatement (Second) of Torts ~ 46 cm!. h; Munsmann...Y....JJilllilll, 970 F. Supp,
389, 403 (E.D. Pa. 1997). Our Supreme Court has noted that for outrageous
conduct to be found
it has not been enough that the defendant has acted with
an intent which is tortious or even criminal, or that he has
intended to inflict emotional distress, or even lhat his
conduct has been chal'llcterized by "malice," or a degree
of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to
damages for another tOli. Liability has been found where
the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so
extreme in degree, as to go beyond all bowl(is of
decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly
intolerable in a civilized community.
Kazatsky v, Kin!.: David Memori.lI.LPark, 515 Pa. at 190.91,527 A.2d at 991,
quoting, Restatement (Second) of Torts ~ 46 cm!. d, The sparse facts which
Appellant alleges regarding Dr. Zehner's actions in drafting the letter and sending
carbon copies to various individuals even if done after failing to fully investigate
the incident simply as a malleI' of law does not rise to the level of outrageous
conduct necessalY to sustain a cause of action in intentional infliction of emotional
distress, Accordingly, the trial court's sustaining of preliminary objections
regal'dingthe count of emotional distress against Dr. Zehner is affinned.
Finally, we come to the count of libel against Dr. Zehner. To
sufficiently allege a cause of action in libel, one must allege facts showing:
(I) the defamatory character of the communication,
13
(2) publication ol'the communication to a third party,
(3) that the communication refers to the plaintiff,
(4) the third party's understanding of the
communication's defamatory character and
(5) injury.
~,588 A.2d 103,106.107 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991), The complaint is
sparse on facts, Reading the complaint in light of the leller which Dr. Zehner
wrote, with carbon copies to several individuals, it asserts that Appellant engaged
in "verbally abusive behavior" which was "inappropriate and certainly did not set a
good example for" the students and it barred Appellant from school premises for
one year for non.educational activities. The question presented by the demurrer is
not whether Appellant will prove ultimately successful on the merits but whether
he has alleged sufficient facts to meet all of the elements of a cause of action not
whether he will ultimately be able to prove those facts which he alleges. The
complaint read in the light most favorable to Appellant fails to allege sufficient
facts stating a cause of action in libel. Accordingly the order of the trial court is
affirmed as it sustained Dr. Zehner's preliminary objections to the complaint
regarding the libel count.
The order of the trial court, therefore, is affirmed.)
J Appellant also complains that the trial coun did not issue an opinion justifying its denial
of Appellant's preliminary objections to the Defendants' preliminary objections. However as the
Defendants point oul in their brief the only order which Appellant appealed from according to
his notice of appeal was the order of July 9, 1999, the trial court's order dismissing the complaint
and sustaining the Defendants' preliminary objections. The Appellant did not appeal the June 10,
1999 order of the trial court dismissing his preliminary objections to Defendants' preliminary
objections. Accordingly, we cannot fault Ihe lrial court for having failed to issue an opinion.
See Pa, R.A.P. No, 1925 (trial judge's receipt of the notice of appeal triggers duty of trial court
to issue opinion stating the reasons for the order which is the subject of the notice of appeal).
14
..J'~:> II
f .'n~ ..Jl
('1) I yeN
Rodger E. Sl1rlgnoll. Jr,
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PBNNSYLV ANIA
v,
Bast Pennsboro Area School District, et at.
(C,P. Cumberland County
No, 99.314)
No. IJS3 MDA, 1999
~.s.eptemher 28
.1922
QRllER
Appellees' motion to transfer this appeal to Commonwealth Courl is GRANTED,
See Pa.R.A.P. 751; Brad)' Contracting Co. v. West Mancl/ester Twp. Sewer Aut"., 487
A.2d 894 (pa, Super. 1985) (legislature vested exclusive lIPpellate jurisdiction In
Commonwealth Court in tort actions brought against a local government party, and such
jurisdiction extends to all parties as long liS at least one party is a local agency and the
case is govemed at least in part by the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa. C.S.
~~ 8541.8564), on trallSJer, 508 A.2d 1287 (pa. Cmwlth. 1986); 42 Pat C.S, 6762(a)(7);
see also Coco Bros., Inc. v, The Board of Pub. Edu". OJ the Seh. Dlst. Of Pgh" 546
A.2d 412 (pa. Super. 1989) (school districts are within the meaning of the lenn "political
subdivisions"), on trallsfer, 568 A,2d 309 (Pa. Cmwlth, 1989).
Per Curiam
T 6,.1
. ,
,: i ~ 'II, I
n \f) )
C V) "
." ., I
\.Jf! <:')
[Ht~ '-l
;~{rl) -~ ..
, i "
(" ". ,
"
,'" i. (J
,,.-~
~j~j ;,:'.. "
:'::1: ! ;:u
'2 "
i, ; ,', I
~1 ~..l ;U
-, /0,) ~
TRUE COpy FROM RECORD
Attest; 9/29/99
, i
, ,
pull up th~ finish on the floors. It is disputed as to whether Appellant was
informed of this before he placed the tape. It is also disputed as to whether
Appellant engaged in abusive words with a school custodian, named Mrs. Greene
who informed Appellant at least after the tape was placed on the floor already that
he was not permitted to place tape thereon, R.R at 34.
On February 27, 1998, Dr. Glenn Zehner, Superintendent of the
District sent a letter to "Mr. Rodger Sgrignoli" in which Dr. Zehner wrote:
It is my understanding that you chose to disregard the
request from our school staff when they asked you not to
place duct tape on your gym floor at the East Pennsboro
Elementary School. I was told that you became verbally
abusive and continued to place the duct tape on the floor,
The staff member who talked with you has earned a great
deal of respect from our administration and has the
responsibility to enforce the rules of the maintenance for
that building.
The school district provides these facilities to the East
Pennsboro Youth Athletic League [EPY AL] for the
welfare of our students. Your behavior was inappropriate
and certainly did not set a good example for our students,
For this reason, you will not be permitted to attend
activities on school property unless they are
educationally related for one year from this date,
Educational activities would include parent/teacher
conference and open houses in the buildings,
RR. at 25.26, This letter was carbon copied to, among others, the local township
police chief, the school board members and the president of the EPY AL through
which Appellant volunteered to run the tournament. On March 2, 1998, Appellanl
requested a hearing before the School Board to appeal his being banned from
2
school property. R.R. at 28, On April 21, 1998, a previously agreed upon mceting
took place which was taped and subsequcntly transcribcd. At this meeting, where
Appellant was ablc to question Mrs. Greene and another custodian who was also
present on the evcning of the incident, Dr. Zehner offcred to lift the ban on
Appellant if he would apologize to Mrs, Greene. RR. at 37. Feeling that he did
nothing wrong, Appellant declined to apologize. R.R. at 39,
On January 20, 1999, Appellant pro se instituted this suit. He named
as defendants Dr, Zehner, the Pistrict, members of the School Board of the
District, Mrs. Greene, as well as others. In his sclf~drafted complaint he includes
six counts, including libel, conspiracy, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence,
fraud by use of the United States Postal Service, and infliction of emotional
distress, The defendants filed preliminary objections to the complaint. Appellant
filed preliminary objections to the defendants' preliminary objections. The trial
court dismissed Appellant's preliminary objections to the defendants' preliminary
objections. Then the trial court sustained the defendants' preliminary objections to
the complaint and dismissed it. From the trial court '8 order dismissing the
complaint, Appellant appeals pro se to this court.
Appellate review of an order of the trial court involving preliminary
objections in the nature of a demurrer is limited to detemlinillg whether the trial
court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Lany Pitt & Associates v,
l&ng, 7 I 6 A,2d 695 (Pa, Cmwlth. 1998). In doing so, we accept as true all well
pleaded allegations of material fact in the complaint and any inferences reasonably
deducible therefrom. Id. However, a court need not accept any of a complaint's
conclusions of law or argumentative allegations, Smlill...Y..JiQ, 554 Pa. 600, 722
A,2d 664 (1998). Accepting as tme all well-pleaded material facts and the
3
reasonable mferences deducible therefrom, the question presented by a demurrcr is
whethcr the la\\ says with certainty that no recovery is possible. Jochen v. Horn,
727 A.2d 645 CPa, Cmwlth, 1999). While pleadings filed by pro se litigants arc to
be construed liberally, a pro se litigant is not to be given any particular advantage
because of his lack of knowledge of the law. Mueller v. Pennsylvania State Police
lkadquarters, 532 A.2d 900, 902 CPa. Cmwlth. 1987).
Viewing the complaint in light of the foregoing standards, the heart of
the factual avennent in Appellant's complaint is stated by Appellant as follows:
At the aforementioned meeting [i.e., April 21, 1998], the
accusers [i.e., Mrs. Greene and the second custodian]
invalidated the charges of the published facts [i.e., that
Appellant was asked not to put duct tape down and that
he subsequently ignored this request and that Appellant
became verbally abusive with Mrs, Greene] as stated by
the Defendants, proving egregious conduct on behalf of
the Defendants and that they did with wilIful, wanton and
reckless disregard actively with knowledge and
forethought conspire to libel Sgrignoli through a series of
slanderous accusations, through negligent actions,
without any findings of fact, hearing or other arbitrary
process, convicting and sentencing him to extraordinary
and severe punishment, and administering punishment
from unsubstantiated charges by use of the United States
Mail causing emotional distress and irreparable damages
to Sgri!:,'l1oli.
Appellant's complaint at ~114, R.R. at 7. Reading the complaint with all reasonable
inferences deducible therefrom, it appears that Appellant is alleging that Dr.
Zehner's sending of the February 27, 1998 leiteI' constituted libel. Moreover, based
on this leiter, Appellant alleges that not only Dr. Zehner but all of the Defendants
libeled him, conspired to libel him, made fraudulent misrepresentations, engaged in
negligent conduct, used the United States mail to conduct fraud and engaged in
either intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress.
4
Appellant presents seven questions for review, We will deal only with
those questions necessary to dispose of this case.
The first question we address is "Did the District Court [sic, meaning
the trial court] err or abuse its discretion or reach a manifestly unreasonable, biased
or prejudiced result when it asserted that plaintiff/appellant's service of process was
defective?" Appellant's brief at 14. The trial court noted that
[wJith one exception, the plaintiff's service of
process is patently defective. There was an acceptance of
service, as allowed under Pa. R.C.P. Rule 402,(11 by
--...
I Pa. R.C.P, No. 402 provides then and now that
(a) Oliginal process may be served
(I) by handing a copy to the defendant; or
(2) by handing a copy
(i) at the residence of the defendant to an adult member of the family
with whom he resides; but if no adult member of the family is found, then to an
adult person in charge of such residence; or
(ii) at the residence of the defendant to the clerk or manager of the hotel,
inn, apartment house, hoarding house or other place oflodging at which he
resides; or
(iii) at any office or usual place of business of the defendant to his agent
or to the person for the time being in charge thereof.
(b) In lieu of service under this rule, the defendant or his authorized agent
may accept service of original process by filing a separate document which shall
be substantially in the following form:
(Caption)
Acceptance of Service
I accept service of the _ (on behalf of
and certify that I am authorized to do so).
(Date)
(Defendant or Authorized Agent)
(Mailing Address)
(Footnote contInued on next page...)
5
defendants East Pennsboro Area School District, Zehner,
Punt and Schmick. However, service of the complaint as
to the various other defendants was attempted via mail.
Pursuant to Pa, R.C.P. Rule 400, service of process is to
be done by the sheriff, and pursuant to Pa.R.C.P, Rule
403, service of original process by mail is pemlilled only
in certain circumstances, No aspect of the plaintiffs
complaint falls within one of those categories where
service of process by mail is proper and therefore the
service of process as to the remaining defendants is
defective.
Trial court's slip op. at 3. Appellant argues that the trial courts factual premise is
erroneous. We cannot detect any legal crror or abusc of discrction in the trial
court's holding in this regard,
As this court has noted before, our Supreme Court has statcd that the
rules regarding service of original process must be strictly complied with. Burger
v. Borough of Ingram, 697 A.2d 1037, 1040-41 (Pa. Cmwlth, 1997), Citillg, Shm:n
v V C~nter, 422 Pa, 124,221 A.2d 185 (1966). Those rules
require service of original process by the sheriff except in limited circumstances,
not here applicable,2 The trial court found that the rules were not complied with.
(continued... )
Note
The plainti ff should insert in the first blank the name of the
document being accepted, Le, writ of summons or complaint.
When accepting service in person, the defendant would delete the
part of the sentence in parentheses.
2 At the time of the institution of this suit, PaRe,P. No, 400 provided:
(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c) and in Rules 400, I
[dealing with actions commenced in the First Judicial DistriclJ and 1930.4
[dealing with service in domestic relations matters], original process shall be
served within the Commonwealth only by the sheriff.
(Footnote continued on next page...)
6
Indeed, Appellant docs not contend that .my of the exceptions that were found in
Pa, R.C.P, No. 400 (b) or (c) apply. Nor does Appellant contend that personal
service was attempted by the sheriff. Appellant merely avers that that service was
attempted by his "server" and that the defendants refused service of the complaint
so then Appellant "served" the other defendants by mail. However, Pa, R.C.P. 403
provides that service of original process may be made by mail only "[i]f a rule of
civil procedure authorizes original process to be served by mail..." Here Appellant
fails to point to any rule of civil. procedure which authorizes service of original
process by mail in this case. Appellant also suggests that the defendants possessed
actual knowledge of the fact that suit had been instituted and such was sufficient.
We disagree.
The rules of service must be strictly complied with. Burger, It is only
by proper service of original process that a court gains personal jurisdiction over a
defendant. ShilllLV, VaHey FQ~klll Center. The mere fact that a defendant
may have actual knowledge of the institution of a suit against him does not
otherwise cure defective service of original process, See Bur~er, 697 A.2d at
(continued.. ,)
(b) In addition to service by the sheriff, original process may be served
also by a competent adult who is not a party in the following actions: equity,
partition, prevent waste, and declaratory judgment when declaratory relief is the
only relief sought.
(c) When the sheriff is a party to the action, original process shall be
served by the coroner or other officer authorized by law 10 perform the duties of
coroner.
(d) If service is to be made by the sheriff in a county other than the county
in which the action was comm~nced, the sheriff of the county where service may
be made shall be deputized for that purpose by the sheriff of the county where the
action was commenced.
7
1040-41 (notwithstanding the fact that two of the named defendants were alleged
to have been "aware of and had acknowledged the fact that they were defendants
in" the suit, this court affirmed the trial court's order excluding them as deflmdants
becausc there was no evidence that proper service of original process was
effectuated), The trial court found that service of process was defective with
rcgard to all the defendants other than East Pennsboro Area School District,
Zehner, Punt and Schmick. Appellant failed to show this case was onc wherein
service by mail was authorized by a rule of civil procedure. Actual knowledge of
the institution of a suit does not serve to cure improper service of original process.
We do, therefore, affirm the trial court's order regarding all the defcndants other
than the four above named.
The next question raised by Appellant is: "Did the District Court [!tial
court] err or abuse its discretion or reach a manifestly unreasonable biased or
prejudiced result whcn it granted governmental immunity although Appellant
submitted prima-facie evidence" to show that 42 Pa. C.S. ~8550 was applicable to
this case? Appellant's brief at ]4. The trial court held that the popularly called
Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA) shields the District from any
liability. Section 8541 qf the PSTCA provides that "[e)xcept as otherwise
provided in this &ubchapter, no lucal agency shall be liable for allY damages on
account of any injury to a person or property caused by any act of the local agency
or an employee thereof or any person." The trial court found that Appellant failed
to allege any of the exceptions to immunity were applicable and therefore, held
that the District, as a local agency was immune. Appellant argues that 42 Pa, C.S.
~8550 is applicable. That section provides as follows:
[i]n any action against a local agency or employee
thereof for damages on account of an injury caused by
8
the act of the employee in which it is judicially
detennined that the act of the employee caused the injury
and that such act constituted a crime. actual fraud, actual
malice, or willful misconduct, the provisions of Section
8545 (relating to official liability generally), 8546
(relating to defense of official immunity), 8548 (relating
to indemnity) and 8549 (relating to limitation on
damages) shall not apply.
Appellant erroneollsly intimates that because he alleged willful misconduct on the
part of employees of the District, Section 8550 abrogates the District's immunity.
This is not COlTect. See, u., eit'l of Philadelphia v. Browl1, 618 A.2d 1236 (Pa.
Cmwlth. I 992)(Section 8550 only abrogates an employee's immunity afforded by
the PSTCA but not the local agency's immunity). Accordingly, the trial court's
sustaining of the District's preliminary objection on this ground is affinned.
The next question we address is did lithe District Court [trial court] err
or abuse its discretion or reach a manifestly unreasonable, biased, or prejudiced
result when it granted governmental immunity even though prima facie evidence
was submitted showing that a custodian was off-duty and that Superintendent of
Schools [Dr. Zehner] acted outside his jurisdiction by administering sanctions after
the President of the Youth League ... refused to administer such sanctions?"
Appellant's brief at 14, The trial court held that
[a]n employee of a local government is liable for
personal injuries caused by acts of the employee
performed within the scope of his office or duties only to
the same extent as the local government agency, 42 Pa.
C,SA Section 8545, The plaintiff [Appellant] has not
alleged any facts in the complaint that show that any of
the school district employees named as defendants in this
action acted outside the scope of their duties as
employees of East Pennsboro Are School District.
Therefore, in order for the claims against the individuals
to survive the defendants['] preliminary objections, the
plaintiff must either allege negligent acts by the
defendant employees that fall within one of the eight
9
. exceptions to immunity listed in Section 8542(b), or
allege facts that the employees' acts constituted a crimc,
actual fraud, actual malice. or willful misconduct in
whieh case the defense of ofticial immunity is waived.
42 Pa, C.S.A, Section 8550.
Trial court slip op, at pp, 4-5, We agrce with the trial court's rationale, Insofar as
Appellant's complaint fails to allege any facts whatsoever regarding defendants
Punk and Schmick, let alone facts alleging that they acted outside the scope of their
oftice or duties 01' that such actions fell within any of the exceptions to immunity
provided in 42 Pa. C.S. *8542(b), their preliminary objections were properly
sustained, We note that Appellant in his brief to this court only argues that
defendants Greene and Zehner acted outside the scope of their duties. Appellant's
bnef at pp, 22-23, Thus, to the extent that Appellant had Illeant to allege as error
the trial court's sustaining of Punk's and Schmick's preliminary objections based on
Appellant's failure to allege facts showing that they acted outside the scope of their
employment, we find Appellant has waived any such argument. Accordingly, the
trial court's order sustaining the preliminary objections of defendants Punk and
Schmick is affirmed,
Finally we come to Appellant's arguments that the preliminary
objections filed on behalf of Dr. Zehner were improperly sustained. There were
six counts li~ted ill Appellant's complaint. As to the negligene!? count, the trial
court did not err in sustaining 01', Zehner's preliminary objections. Because the
negligence count could legally only aver negligence and Dr. Zehner is entitled to
immunity for negligent conduct under the PSTCA, Dr. Zehner would be entitled to
immunity unless there was an exception. Appellant alleged no exception 10
immunity provided in 42 Pa. C.S, *8542(b), Notwithstanding Appellant's bare
legal averment that Dr, Zehner acted outside the scope of his employment so as to
10
render the immunity afforded by PSTCA inapplicable, see 42 Pa. C.S. *8546, we
are not required to accept such legal conclusions. funillLx.JiQrn. The mere fact
that Dr. Zehner attempted to get Appellant's superiors in the Youth Athletic League
to take action regarding Appellant does not compel the legal conclusion that such
actions are beyond the scope of Dr. Zehner's employment. Thus, the negligent
count was properly dismissed.
As for the conspiracy to commit libel count, it too was properly
dismissed. To prove civil conspiracy, one must prove: I) a combination of two or
more persons acting with a common purpose to do an unlawful act or to do a
lawful act by unlawful means or for an unlawful purpose; 2) an overt act done in
furtherance of the common purpose; and 3) actual legal damage. ~
University of Scranton, 700 A.2d 979 (Pa. Super. 1997), Here, even giving the
Appellant's complaint a liberal reading, it fails to allege sufficient facts that Dr.
Zehner's actions in writing and sending the letter was accomplished by him and
another acting with a common purpose to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act
by unlawful means. At most, the complaint infers only Dr. Zehner acted with such
a purpose in regards to the assertedly libelous letter.
As to the fraud count, it too was properly dismissed. Proof of fraud
requires: I) a misrepresentation; 2) an utterance thereof; 3) an intention by the
maker of the utterance that the recipient will be induced to act 4) justifiable
reliance by the recipient upon the misrepresentation and 5) damage to the
recipient as a proximate result. Edmondson v, Zetusky, 674 A.2d 760 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1996). Here the complaint fails to aver any facts regarding justifiable
reliance by Appellant on Dr. Zehner's alleged misrepresentation. Hence, the
II
count regarding fraud by the United States mail likewise fails, as there was no
fraud sufficiently averred,
As to the emotional distress claim, we agree wilh the trial court, The
trial court observed that it was not clear from the complaint whether Appellant was
alleging negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, To the extent that
the complaint alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress by Dr. Zehner. such
negligence would fall within the immunity protection of the PSTCA because there
arc no exceptions averred or applicable herein.
If on the other hand, Appellant is allcging intentional infliction of
emotional distress, it is not entirely clear that this Commonwealth recognizes such
a cause of action, See, ~, Kelly v, Resource Housing In~, 615 A.2d 423, 426
(Pa, Super. 1992), citing, K~y v. King David MemoriaLEill:k. 515 Pa, 183,
197, 527 A.2d 988, 995 (1987)("1Oe tort has not been adopted and made a part of
the law of Pennsylvania, "). ~ Bls..Q Taylor v. Albert Einstein ~Cent~r, _
Pa. __' __ A,2d __' 2000 WL 630999 at p.2 (No. 33 E.D. Appeal Dkt. 1999, May
17, 2000)("Although we have never expressly recognized a cause of action for
intentional infliction of emotional distress. and thus have never fonnally adopted
this section [I.e., 46J of the Restatement [Second of TortsJ. we have cited this
section as setting forth tht. minimllm elements necf.'ssary to sustain such a cause of
action.") BUI see McNtll v. City of Easton, 598 A.2d 638, 640 (Pa, Cmwlth.
1991 )("this court concludes that the tort of intentional infliction of emotional
distress is recognized by Pennsylvania courts."), Assuming arguendo, such a
cause of action does cxist, to establish intentional infliction of emotional distress, it
would be necessary to aver that I) defendants engaged in extreme and outrageous
conduct; 2) that was intentional 01' reckless 3) which causes emotional distress to
12
the plaintiff. ~ Taylor v, Albert Einstein Medkill: ~ler v, M(ll1sQltr, 865 F,
Supp, 234, 241, (M.D. Pa. 1994), The gravaman of the tort is outrageous conduct
on the part of the tort feasor, Kazatsky.\', King David~J.11Q!jal Park. "It is for the
court to detennine in the first instance, whether the defendant's conduct may
reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to pennit recovery...,"
Restatement (Second) of Torts * 46 cml. h; Mansmann v, Tuman. 970 F, Supp.
389, 403 (E.D. Pa. 1997). Our Supreme Court has noted that for outrageous
conduct to be found
it has not been enough that the defendant has acted with
an intent which is tortious or even criminal, or that he has
intended to inflict emotional distress, or even that his
conduct has been characterized by "malice," or a degree
of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to
damages for another tort. Liability has been found where
the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so
extreme in degree, as to go beyond all bounds of
decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly
intolerable in a civilized community.
Kazatsky v. King David Memorial Park, 515 Pa. at 190-91, 527 A.2d at 991,
quoting, Restatement (Second) of Torts ~ 46 cml. d. The sparse facts which
Appellant alleges regarding Dr. Zehner's actions in drafting the letter and sending
carbon copies to various individuals even if done after failing to fully investigate
the incident simply as a matter of law does not rise to the level of outrageous
conduct necessary to sustain a cause of action in intentional infliction of emotional
distress. Accordingly, the trial court's sustaining of preliminary objections
regarding the count of emotional distress against Dr. Zehner is affinned.
Finally, we come to the count of libel against Dr. Zehner, To
sufficiently allege a cause of action in libel, one must allege facts showing:
(I ) the defamatory character of the communication,
13
(2) publication of the communication to a third party,
(3) that the communication refers to the plaintiff,
(4) the third party's understanding of the
communication's defamatory character and
(5) injury,
Petula v, M~, 588 A.2d 103, 106.107 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991), The complaint is
sparse on facts, Reading the complaint in light of the letter which Dr. Zehner
wrote, with carbon copies to several individuals, it asserts that Appellant engaged
in "verbally abusive behavior" which was "inappropriate and certainly did not set a
good example for" the students and it barred Appellant from school premises for
one year for non-educational activities. The question presented by the demurrer is
not whether Appellant will prove ultimately successful on the merits but whether
he has alleged sufficient facts to meet all of the elements of a cause of action not
whether he will ultimately be able to prove those facts which he alleges, The
complaint read in the light most favorable to Appellant fails to allege sufficient
facts stating a cause of action in libel. Accordingly the order of the trial court is
affirmed as it sustained Dr. Zehner's preliminary objections to the complaint
regarding the libel count.
The order of the trial court, therefore, is affirmed,)
) Appellant also complains that the trial co did not issue an opinion justifying its denial
of Appellant's preliminary objections to the Defendants' preliminary objections, However as the
Defendants point out in their brief the only order which Appellant appealed from according to
his noliee of appeal was the order of July 9, J 999, the trial court's order dismissing the complaint
and sustaining the Defendants' preliminary objections. The Appellant did not appeal the June J 0,
J 999 order of the trial court dismissing his preliminary objections to Defendants' preliminary
objections. Accordingly, we cannot fault the trial coul1 for having failed to issue an opinion.
See Pa. RAP, No. J 925 (trial judge's receipt of the notice of appeal triggers duty of trial court
to issue opinion stating the reasons for the order which is the subject of the notice of appeal).
14