A federal judge from the District of Massachusetts has dismissed a lawsuit brought by the former basketball coach at the University of Evansville in Indiana (UE), who alleged that the university, one of its employees (Jane Doe), and the employee’s attorney defamed him (collectively referred to as “the defendants”), all while Doe was engaged in litigation alleging that the coach sexually assaulted her.
Plaintiff Walter McCarty became the head basketball coach at UE in 2018. In 2019, he met Doe, who was then an athletic trainer for the program. In December 2019, Doe and McCarty engaged in some form of sexual contact. On December 22, 2019, McCarty met with the athletic director and president of UE, who together informed him that he was the subject of an investigation stemming from a report of misconduct related to his contact with Doe. Thereafter, McCarty was placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of that investigation. During the investigation, UE allegedly made statements accusing McCarty of “engaging in non-consensual sexual activity and exhibiting predatory behavior to women.” After UE’s inquiry concluded, McCarty’s employment was subsequently terminated on January 21, 2020.
In April 2021, Jane Doe (represented by attorney Michelle Tuegel) sued UE in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, claiming, in general terms, that UE failed to protect Doe from a sexually hostile environment created by McCarty.
According to the present complaint, two news articles written about that lawsuit contained defamatory statements about McCarty. On April 12, 2021, the Evansville Courier & Press published an article summarizing the nature of the lawsuit, excerpting parts of the complaint, and quoting several statements made by the defendants either to that paper or in other press releases. That article was allegedly republished by USA Today. On April 14, 2021, CNN published a similar article with largely the same information. The CNN article also noted: “Tuegel told CNN that her client has also filed a civil claim against McCarty in Massachusetts, where he resides. Court records indicate she has filed a proof of claim and sent his counsel a demand letter.”
Those articles and others allegedly caused McCarty to “suffer reputational harm,” such as preventing him from finding another job. McCarty filed his defamation lawsuit on December 9, 2022, and amended the complaint on January 24, 2024. The amended complaint alleges three counts: defamation against Jane Doe and Michelle Tuegel (Count 1); invasion of privacy against Doe and Tuegel (Count 2); and defamation against the University of Evansville (Count 3).
In response to the lawsuit, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Of relevance to the personal jurisdiction,McCarty is a Massachusetts resident, Doe is an Indiana resident and attorney Michelle Tuegel resides in Dallas, Texas. McCarty argued that the defendants’ intentional actions directed toward harming his reputation and business relationships in Massachusetts are sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.
After some analysis, the court concluded that it could not assert general jurisdiction over the defendants, concluding that there is “no evidence of any continuous systemic contact by any defendant with Massachusetts (McCarty’s state of residence), such that they would be ‘at home’ in the Commonwealth.”
As for exercising specific jurisdiction, the court noted that a showing of “a demonstrable nexus between the complaint’s claims and the activities in the forum”- PREP Tours, Inc. v. Am. Youth Soccer Org., 913 F.3d 11, 18 (1st Cir. 2019) – must be shown. The minimum-contacts analysis has three prongs—relatedness, purposeful availment, and reasonableness.
On relatedness, the court determined that that plaintiff “has carried his burden to show a jurisdictional nexus between his claims and Massachusetts.”
As for purposeful availment, the court wrote that “even crediting McCarty’s assertion that he remained a resident of Massachusetts throughout his time at UE and afterwards—including the entire period he was employed full-time in Indiana—that fact alone does not establish defendants’ knowledge of McCarty’s residence at the time of the relevant statements.At best, it might be supposed that UE could have known that McCarty resided in Massachusetts. But there is no evidence supporting the bare proposition that either Doe or Tuegel knew that their statements would affect McCarty in Massachusetts.”
Further, it noted that “Indiana is clearly (and overwhelmingly) the focal point of plaintiff’s allegations, and none of defendants’ alleged conduct evidences a deliberate effort to reach into Massachusetts. There is, therefore, no ground from which to conclude that defendants purposefully availed themselves of the forum, and asserting personal jurisdiction over them under the circumstances would not comply with the requirements of constitutional due process.”
In conclusion, “the defendants do not have ‘minimum contacts’ with Massachusetts ‘such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ Because the claim underlying the litigation only tenuously arises out of, or relates to, defendants’ forum-state activities, and because defendants’ in-state contacts do not represent a purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendants would be inconsistent with the requirements of due process.”
Walter Lee McCarty, III v. Jane Doe, Michelle Tuegel, and University Of Evansville; D. Mass.; Civil Action No. 22-12091; 8/15/24
