Rossi v. Schlarbaum
2009 WL 222418, 600 F.Supp.2d 650 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Intentionally making false and damaging statements to a third party with the purpose of harming an existing or prospective contractual relationship can constitute tortious interference and defamation, creating a triable issue of fact that precludes summary judgment.
Facts:
- Jacqueline Rossi, a co-owner of the online swimwear company Fiu Fiu, also worked as a stripper.
- In 2006, Rossi met Mark Schlarbaum at a strip club and they began meeting privately in hotel rooms.
- Rossi sent Mark Schlarbaum a confidential email soliciting investment in Fiu Fiu, which had an existing business relationship with fitness celebrity Jennifer Nicole Lee.
- Mark Schlarbaum's wife, Janet Schlarbaum, discovered the relationship between her husband and Rossi.
- In early 2007, Janet Schlarbaum made a series of phone calls regarding Rossi.
- Janet Schlarbaum called two strip clubs where Rossi had worked and allegedly told employees that Rossi was a prostitute with a criminal record.
- Janet Schlarbaum also contacted Jennifer Nicole Lee and her agent, informing them of Rossi's relationship with her husband and work as a stripper, and allegedly stating that Rossi was telling others about Lee's large investment in Fiu Fiu.
- Following these calls, Lee's business relationship with Rossi and Fiu Fiu deteriorated, and Lee's agent requested that all photos and references to Lee be removed from the Fiu Fiu website.
Procedural Posture:
- Jacqueline Rossi, Tim Baurer, and Fiu Fiu, L.L.C. filed a complaint against Mark and Janet Schlarbaum in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, asserting diversity jurisdiction.
- The complaint alleged twelve counts, including negligence, tortious interference with contractual relations, invasion of privacy, defamation, slander, and libel.
- Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which the Court granted in part and denied in part, narrowing the number of active claims.
- After the completion of discovery, defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking judgment in their favor on all remaining counts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do genuine issues of material fact exist regarding a defendant's intent, the truthfulness of her statements, and the resulting damages, such that a plaintiff's claims for tortious interference with contractual relations and defamation can survive a motion for summary judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - DuBois, District Judge.
Yes. Genuine issues of material fact exist, precluding summary judgment on the claims of tortious interference and defamation. For the tortious interference claim, the court found sufficient evidence for a jury to consider all four required elements under Pennsylvania law. A prospective contractual relation existed between Rossi and Jennifer Nicole Lee; Janet Schlarbaum's intent was a disputed fact; the privilege of truthfulness was not established because the veracity of her statements was in dispute; and there was evidence of actual legal damage based on Lee's testimony that she altered her relationship with Rossi as a result of the calls. For the defamation (slander) claim, Janet Schlarbaum's alleged statements that Rossi was a prostitute who had been arrested constituted slander per se, as they imputed a criminal offense and serious sexual misconduct. Because the defense of truth was incomplete (defendants offered no proof Rossi had been arrested), and plaintiffs provided evidence of general damages (harm to reputation and personal humiliation), these claims must be decided by a jury. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on other claims, including negligence (no confidential relationship existed between Rossi and Mark Schlarbaum) and invasion of privacy (the limited communications did not meet the legal requirement of 'publicity').
Analysis:
This memorandum opinion serves as a practical illustration of how personal disputes can create civil liability when they spill over into professional contexts. The court's analysis clearly distinguishes between claims that can proceed to trial and those that cannot, based on the existence of disputed material facts. It reinforces that for torts like interference and defamation, a defendant's intent and the truthfulness of their statements are often central factual questions for a jury, making summary judgment inappropriate. The decision also provides a clear application of the high bar required to establish a 'confidential relationship' for a negligence claim and the 'publicity' element for invasion of privacy, offering useful guidance on the specific elements of these torts.
