PSU_dropout43
09-30-2009, 04:40 PM
Court denies several motions in Roethlisberger case
by Mike Florio
On Tuesday, the judge presiding over the sexual assault civil suit filed against Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger issued rulings on various pending motions.
And, for the most part, the rulings favored the plaintiff.
The Court denied Roethlisberger's motion to dismiss a fraud claim arising from the allegation that he lured the plaintiff, an employee of Harrah's, into his hotel room by claiming that his television wasn't working. In a one-page ruling (most of which was taken up by the caption of the multi-defendant lawsuit), the judge found that the allegations "are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief could be granted." The Court also pointed out that a motion to dismiss "is only proper where it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts which if true, would entitle [her] to relief."
The Court also denied Roethlisberger's motion to dismiss the case based on the plaintiff's failure to sue Harrah's directly, finding that the claims against Roethlisberger are independent of any other claims the plaintiff might or might not make. (The plaintiff has since filed a motion to amend the complaint to add Harrah's as a defendant.)
Moreover, the Court denied a motion from Roethlisberger to expedite the pre-trial discovery process, and a motion to strike the complaint based on the argument that the allegations are too salacious and graphic.
The only good news for any of the defendants was that a motion to dismiss the claims against defendant Stacy Dingman, a former co-worker of the plaintiff's, was granted in part as to a trespass claim asserted against Dingman. The Court also required the plaintiff to provide more specificity as to a claim of civil conspiracy. But the Court denied a motion from Dingman to dismiss four other claims, including intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, invasion of privacy, and a claim for punitive damages.
Despite the fact that all of the motions filed by Roethlisberger failed, his legal team is taking a glass-half-full approach to the language of the Court's orders.
"Notwithstanding the result," lawyer David Cornwell said in a statement released to PFT, "we are encouraged by the Court's specific reference to the standard by which it considered the motions. Finding that the plaintiff survived this round because of a generous 'beyond [a] doubt' standard indicates that, at these early stages, the Court is inclined to give plaintiff her day in court. Of course, this cuts both ways.
"In any event," the statement concluded, "her allegations remain false and we remain committed to a vigorous defense."
And so the case eventually will proceed, with a trial date established and various deadlines set for pre-trial maneuverings. At some point after depositions are taken (that's not an angel getting his wings -- that's the lawyers' cash registers churning), Roethlisberger and the other parties will file "motions for summary judgment," a tool for challenging the legal validity of all or some of the claims without a trial.
Still, at some point, the plaintiff will need to explain away a series of pre-incident e-mails indicating that she wanted to have consensual sex with Roethlisberger. Absent a sufficient explanation for her written words, we doubt that the case against Roethlisberger will make it to trial.
by Mike Florio
On Tuesday, the judge presiding over the sexual assault civil suit filed against Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger issued rulings on various pending motions.
And, for the most part, the rulings favored the plaintiff.
The Court denied Roethlisberger's motion to dismiss a fraud claim arising from the allegation that he lured the plaintiff, an employee of Harrah's, into his hotel room by claiming that his television wasn't working. In a one-page ruling (most of which was taken up by the caption of the multi-defendant lawsuit), the judge found that the allegations "are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief could be granted." The Court also pointed out that a motion to dismiss "is only proper where it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts which if true, would entitle [her] to relief."
The Court also denied Roethlisberger's motion to dismiss the case based on the plaintiff's failure to sue Harrah's directly, finding that the claims against Roethlisberger are independent of any other claims the plaintiff might or might not make. (The plaintiff has since filed a motion to amend the complaint to add Harrah's as a defendant.)
Moreover, the Court denied a motion from Roethlisberger to expedite the pre-trial discovery process, and a motion to strike the complaint based on the argument that the allegations are too salacious and graphic.
The only good news for any of the defendants was that a motion to dismiss the claims against defendant Stacy Dingman, a former co-worker of the plaintiff's, was granted in part as to a trespass claim asserted against Dingman. The Court also required the plaintiff to provide more specificity as to a claim of civil conspiracy. But the Court denied a motion from Dingman to dismiss four other claims, including intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, invasion of privacy, and a claim for punitive damages.
Despite the fact that all of the motions filed by Roethlisberger failed, his legal team is taking a glass-half-full approach to the language of the Court's orders.
"Notwithstanding the result," lawyer David Cornwell said in a statement released to PFT, "we are encouraged by the Court's specific reference to the standard by which it considered the motions. Finding that the plaintiff survived this round because of a generous 'beyond [a] doubt' standard indicates that, at these early stages, the Court is inclined to give plaintiff her day in court. Of course, this cuts both ways.
"In any event," the statement concluded, "her allegations remain false and we remain committed to a vigorous defense."
And so the case eventually will proceed, with a trial date established and various deadlines set for pre-trial maneuverings. At some point after depositions are taken (that's not an angel getting his wings -- that's the lawyers' cash registers churning), Roethlisberger and the other parties will file "motions for summary judgment," a tool for challenging the legal validity of all or some of the claims without a trial.
Still, at some point, the plaintiff will need to explain away a series of pre-incident e-mails indicating that she wanted to have consensual sex with Roethlisberger. Absent a sufficient explanation for her written words, we doubt that the case against Roethlisberger will make it to trial.