Cosby Accuser and Her Lawyers Fire Back at Castor Suit
The lawyers say ex-DA Castor's claims can't survive while underlying defamation litigation is pending.
November 30, 2017 at 02:40 PM
8 minute read
Andrea Constand exits the courtroom during deliberations in Bill Cosby's sexual assault trial at the Montgomery County Courthouse in Norristown, Pa., on June 16, 2017.
Lawyers for Bill Cosby accuser Andrea Constand took aim at claims by former prosecutor Bruce Castor in new court papers, arguing that Castor's lawsuit against them and their client should be dismissed.
Bebe Kivitz and Dolores Troiani filed preliminary objections last week in Castor v. Constand, and the filing became publicly available Monday. Castor sued Constand and her lawyers in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 1, alleging that they filed a defamation complaint against him in 2015 to sabotage his chances in the race for Montgomery County district attorney that year.
Castor was the district attorney in Montgomery County in 2005, when Constand initially brought her sexual assault allegations against Cosby. He publicly announced his decision not to bring charges against Cosby at the time, and the comedian wasn't criminally charged until a decade later, after prosecutors obtained more evidence against him.
Constand's suit alleges that Castor defamed her in his remarks about her allegations against Cosby. The case is ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Because the litigation is pending, Kivitz and Troiani argued, Castor's abuse of process and civil conspiracy claims should not survive.
“A lawsuit which depends on termination of a pending lawsuit cannot proceed,” the defendants, represented by Jeffrey McCarron of Swartz Campbell, said in their preliminary objections.
While the complaint brings an abuse of process claim, the preliminary objections said, the language of the complaint better fits the tort of wrongful use of civil proceedings. But Castor cannot bring a claim for wrongful use of civil proceedings while the underlying civil case is pending, the filing said.
“Pursuit of the Constand lawsuit is not actionable as an abuse of process,” Kivitz and Troiani wrote. “Alleged 'false, scandalous statements' or 'fabricated' or 'scurrilous' accusations made in pleadings and court filings in the Constand lawsuit cannot form the basis for defendants' liability to Castor.”
With regard to the conspiracy allegations, Kivitz and Troiani said there can be no tort to serve as the object of conspiracy if there is no abuse of process claim. Additionally, they argued “a lawyer is not a conspirator with a client,” and Castor did not allege facts to show malice on the part of Constand's lawyers.
If the complaint is not dismissed, Troiani and Kivitz alternatively asked for the court to strike certain paragraphs of the complaint that describe the alleged sexual assault, criminal investigation and civil settlement between Constand and Cosby. That material is “scandalous and impertinent,” they said.
“Events which occurred prior to Constand's lawsuit are immaterial to Castor's claimed abuse of process,” the preliminary objections brief said. “Castor's averments about how he set the stage for Constand to obtain a big payment by not prosecuting Cosby is not a defense to the defamation and false light claims” against Castor.
Castor's complaint alleges that Constand and her lawyers helped Kevin Steele, now the Montgomery County district attorney, in making Castor's 2005 decision not to prosecute Cosby a central campaign issue. Then they filed the defamation suit soon before Election Day in 2015.
“The defendants made it their mission to destroy Castor's desire and campaign for Montgomery County district attorney—and did—by embarking on a manifest abuse of legal process, hoping they could shield their mischief via their procurement, initiation and continuation of their frivolous, malicious filing,” the complaint asserts.
Jim Beasley of The Beasley Firm is representing Castor, and did not return a call seeking comment.
Cosby was charged with aggravated indecent assault shortly after the 2015 election. His first criminal trial ended with a hung jury and mistrial in June. A second trial has been scheduled for April.
Andrea Constand exits the courtroom during deliberations in Bill Cosby's sexual assault trial at the Montgomery County Courthouse in Norristown, Pa., on June 16, 2017.
Lawyers for Bill Cosby accuser Andrea Constand took aim at claims by former prosecutor Bruce Castor in new court papers, arguing that Castor's lawsuit against them and their client should be dismissed.
Bebe Kivitz and Dolores Troiani filed preliminary objections last week in Castor v. Constand, and the filing became publicly available Monday. Castor sued Constand and her lawyers in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 1, alleging that they filed a defamation complaint against him in 2015 to sabotage his chances in the race for Montgomery County district attorney that year.
Castor was the district attorney in Montgomery County in 2005, when Constand initially brought her sexual assault allegations against Cosby. He publicly announced his decision not to bring charges against Cosby at the time, and the comedian wasn't criminally charged until a decade later, after prosecutors obtained more evidence against him.
Constand's suit alleges that Castor defamed her in his remarks about her allegations against Cosby. The case is ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Because the litigation is pending, Kivitz and Troiani argued, Castor's abuse of process and civil conspiracy claims should not survive.
“A lawsuit which depends on termination of a pending lawsuit cannot proceed,” the defendants, represented by Jeffrey McCarron of
While the complaint brings an abuse of process claim, the preliminary objections said, the language of the complaint better fits the tort of wrongful use of civil proceedings. But Castor cannot bring a claim for wrongful use of civil proceedings while the underlying civil case is pending, the filing said.
“Pursuit of the Constand lawsuit is not actionable as an abuse of process,” Kivitz and Troiani wrote. “Alleged 'false, scandalous statements' or 'fabricated' or 'scurrilous' accusations made in pleadings and court filings in the Constand lawsuit cannot form the basis for defendants' liability to Castor.”
With regard to the conspiracy allegations, Kivitz and Troiani said there can be no tort to serve as the object of conspiracy if there is no abuse of process claim. Additionally, they argued “a lawyer is not a conspirator with a client,” and Castor did not allege facts to show malice on the part of Constand's lawyers.
If the complaint is not dismissed, Troiani and Kivitz alternatively asked for the court to strike certain paragraphs of the complaint that describe the alleged sexual assault, criminal investigation and civil settlement between Constand and Cosby. That material is “scandalous and impertinent,” they said.
“Events which occurred prior to Constand's lawsuit are immaterial to Castor's claimed abuse of process,” the preliminary objections brief said. “Castor's averments about how he set the stage for Constand to obtain a big payment by not prosecuting Cosby is not a defense to the defamation and false light claims” against Castor.
Castor's complaint alleges that Constand and her lawyers helped Kevin Steele, now the Montgomery County district attorney, in making Castor's 2005 decision not to prosecute Cosby a central campaign issue. Then they filed the defamation suit soon before Election Day in 2015.
“The defendants made it their mission to destroy Castor's desire and campaign for Montgomery County district attorney—and did—by embarking on a manifest abuse of legal process, hoping they could shield their mischief via their procurement, initiation and continuation of their frivolous, malicious filing,” the complaint asserts.
Jim Beasley of
Cosby was charged with aggravated indecent assault shortly after the 2015 election. His first criminal trial ended with a hung jury and mistrial in June. A second trial has been scheduled for April.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPhila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
3 minute read'Recover, Reflect, Retool and Retry': Lessons From Women Atop Pa. Legal Community
3 minute readEDPA's New Chief Judge Plans to Advance Efforts to Combat Threats to Judiciary
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250