Daniczek v. Spencer
| Decision Date | 11 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:15cv505 |
| Citation | 156 F.Supp.3d 739 |
| Parties | Melissa Elizabeth Daniczek, Esquire, Plaintiff, v. Anthony G. Spencer, Esquire, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Vincent L. Robertson, Sr., Vincent L. Robertson Sr. Esq. PLC, Richmond, VA, for Plaintiff.
William Delaney Bayliss, Williams Mullen, Richmond, VA, for Defendant.
Brendan David O'Toole, Williams Mullen, Richmond, VA, for Defendant John Mahoney.
This matter is before the Court on ANTHONY G. SPENCER'S RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS (Docket No. 8). For the reasons stated below, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as it pertains to Counts Three and Four, which are dismissed with prejudice. The motion is granted as it pertains to Count Five, which is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to re-plead within 21 days of this opinion. The motion is denied as to the remaining counts. Additionally, the Court grants Danjczek's request to amend her Complaint to plead a count of business conspiracy under Va. Code §§ 18.2-499 -.500.1
The Complaint states that on May 15, 2015, Caroline County Commonwealth's Attorney Anthony G. Spencer interrupted a DUI proceeding (in which he was, based on the Complaint and the briefing, apparently not serving as the prosecuting attorney or participating in any legal capacity) to demand that the plaintiff, Melissa Danjczek, give him a DUI Manual that was in Danjczek's possession. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-17). At the time, Danjczek was defending a client on a DUI charge in the General District Court of Caroline County. In open court, Spencer accused Danjczek of having taken the DUI Manual from his office. (Compl. Exs. 1, 7). When Danjczek would not give Spencer the manual, he shoved her and grabbed the manual. (Compl. ¶ 17). The presiding judge ordered Spencer to return the manual to Dancjzek, and ordered Spencer out of the courtroom. (Compl. ¶ 17).
That afternoon, without further investigation, Spencer filed a criminal complaint accusing Danjczek of larceny. (Compl. ¶ 19-23). In his criminal complaint, Spencer stated that he was the Commonwealth Attorney of Caroline County. (Compl. ¶ 19). Spencer had the resulting warrant of arrest served on Danjczek in the courtroom. (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 24). Danjczek retained counsel the same day. (Compl. ¶ 25).
On May 20, 2015, a Caroline County judge appointed a special prosecutor in all cases in which Danjczek served as defense counsel. (Compl. ¶ 27). On May 21, a Caroline County judge appointed a special prosecutor in the larceny case against Danjczek. (Compl. ¶ 29). The appointments served to remove Spencer from all cases involving Danjczek.
On May 19, 2015, John Mahoney, a lawyer, informed Danjczek that the altercation over the manual had “made” Virginia Lawyers Weekly . (Compl. ¶ 26). On May 20, 2015, Mahoney contacted Danjczek again to speak about his running for Commonwealth's Attorney against Spencer. (Compl. ¶ 28). On May 22, 2015, “knowing that Danjczek was represented by counsel and that a Special Prosecutor had been appointed” in the larceny case, Mahoney contacted Danjczek and informed her that he had brokered a deal whereby Spencer would drop the larceny charges against Danjczek if Danjczek dropped all civil and criminal charges against Spencer. (Compl. ¶ 31). Mahoney also stated that “Danjczek's business had been hurt by the situation and that it was only going to get worse.” (Compl. ¶ 31). On May 26, 2015, Mahoney asked to speak to Danjczek in person; she told him to speak to her attorney. (Compl. ¶ 32). On May 28, 2015, Mahoney informed Danjczek that he was running for the position of Commonwealth's Attorney. (Compl. ¶¶ 33). On or about June 1, 2015, Mahoney again mentioned to Danjczek that he had met with Spencer to “figure out how to handle the situation”; Danjczek informed Mahoney to speak to her attorney. (Compl. ¶¶ 34).2
On June 2, 2015, Danjczek was informed that she was being removed from the Court Appointed Counsel list for all Caroline County courts. (Compl. ¶ 36). On June 5 and June 9, 2015, Mahoney requested to speak with Danjczek, and Danjczek did not respond. (Compl. ¶¶ 36-37). On June 10, 2015, Mahoney called again, telling Danjczek that the larceny charge had cost Danjczek business, and that she, Mahoney, and Spencer needed to “fix it.” (Compl. ¶ 39).
Mahoney also informed Danjczek that he would be writing an article about the incident for the Caroline Progress , and stated “I think you want me thinking happy thoughts when I write the article.” (Compl. ¶ 39). Later that day, Sgt. Nutter of the Caroline County Sheriff's Office called Danjczek and informed her of the following: that Spencer was “planning to file a letter to have her removed from the Caroline County Court Appointed Counsel Lists” using “everything he had on Danjczek”; that Mahoney had worked out a reciprocal agreement for Spencer and Danjczek to drop charges against each other, and that Spencer would not “bury” the “information he [had] on Danjczek” unless Danjczek agreed; that Spencer “would be making allegations to tarnish Danjczek's reputation if the drama continue[d]”; that Mahoney had requested that Nutter call Danjczek. (Compl. ¶ 40).
“When Mahoney determined that he was not going to be able to persuade Danjczek to accept the officer, he began lobbying efforts to have himself replace the Special Prosecutor” in cases where Danjczek served as defense counsel to “further harass and intimidate Danjczek.” (Compl. ¶¶ 42-43). Mahoney was appointed special prosecutor on August 18, 2015, but the judge vacated that order the next day. (Compl. ¶¶ 49-50).
The larceny charge against Danjczek was dismissed with prejudice on June 30, 2015, but not before attracting the attention of several local news outlets, and allegedly “irreparably harm[ing]” Danjczek's reputation as an attorney. (Compl. ¶¶ 44-48).3
On August 24, 2015, Danjczek filed the Complaint in this Court asserting five claims against Spencer and three claims against Mahoney and Spencer jointly. The counts against Spencer are:
The counts against Spencer and Mahoney were:
Mahoney filed his motion to dismiss Counts Three, Four, and Eight, accompanied by a Memorandum in Support. (Docket No. 4) (“Mahoney's 12(b)(6) Mem.”). Spencer filed his motion to dismiss all the claims other than Count Two (Assault and Battery), accompanied by a Memorandum in Support. (Docket No. 9) (“Spencer's 12(b)(6) Mem.”). Danjczek replied separately to Mahoney (Pl.'s Mem. in Supp. of Opp. to Def. Mahoney's Mtn. to Dismiss, Docket No. 11) (“Pl.'s Mahoney 12(b)(6) Resp.”) and to Spencer (Pl.'s Mem. in Supp. of Opp. to Def. Spencer's Mtn. to Dismiss, Docket No. 12) (“Pl.'s Spencer 12(b)(6) Resp.”). Mahoney filed a reply. (Def. Mahoney's Reply in Supp. of Mtn. to Dismiss, Docket No. 15) (“Mahoney's 12(b)(6) Reply”). Spencer filed a reply. (Spencer's Rebuttal in Supp. of R. 12(b)(6) Mtn. to Dismiss, Docket No. 14) (“Spencer's 12(b)(6) Reply”).
In her response to Mahoney's brief, Danjczek conceded that she had not adequately pled Counts Three and Four, and withdrew those claims. (Pl.'s Mahoney 12(b)(6) Resp. 2). In the same pleading, Danjczek requested leave to amend the Complaint and to include a new claim against Spencer and Mahoney for “business conspiracy” in violation of Va. Code §§ 18.2-499 -.500. (Pl.'s Mahoney 12(b)(6) Resp. 2). Spencer and Mahoney opposed the amendment.
Danjczek subsequently dismissed Mahoney from the case (Docket No. 18), and the Court denied Mahoney's motion to dismiss as moot (Docket No. 19).
The questions before the Court are:
A motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Jordan v. Alternative Resources Corp. , 458 F.3d 332, 338 (4th Cir.2006). Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) “requires only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” McCleary–Evans v. Maryland Dep't of Transp., State Highway Admin. , 780 F.3d 582, 585 (4th Cir.2015) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ).
When deciding a motion to dismiss, a court “draw[s] all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc. , 591 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir.2009). However, while the court must “will accept the pleader's description of what happened” and “any conclusions that can be reasonably drawn therefrom,” the court “need not accept conclusory allegations encompassing the legal effects of the pleaded facts,” Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357 (3d ed. 1998) ; Chamblee v. Old Dominion Sec. Co., L.L.C. , No. 3:13CV820, 2014 WL 1415095, *4 (E.D.Va.2014). Nor is the court required to accept as true a legal conclusion unsupported by factual allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dao v. Faustin
...man to be presented in court as a photograph of a possible suspect in a child molestation prosecution); Daniczek v. Spencer , 156 F. Supp. 3d 739, 760–61 (E.D. Va. 2016) (Commonwealth's Attorney took a series of actions to abuse a defense attorney, including assaulting the defense attorney ......
-
Fuller v. Carilion Clinic
...malicious intent, nor conduct worthy of punitive damages is sufficient to fulfill the ‘outrageous’ element." Daniczek v. Spencer, 156 F.Supp.3d 739, 759 (E.D. Va. 2016). "Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go ......
-
DJ v. Sch. Bd. of Henrico Cnty.
...acting under color of law, and (3) that the acts of that defendant proximately caused the plaintiff's damages." Daniczek v. Spencer , 156 F. Supp. 3d 739, 747 (E.D. Va. 2016) (citing Amato v. City of Richmond , 875 F. Supp. 1124, 1132–33 (E.D. Va. 1994) )."Under established precedent, these......
-
Smith v. Town of S. Hill
...acting under color of law, and (3) that the acts of that defendant proximately caused the plaintiff's damages." Daniczek v. Spencer , 156 F. Supp. 3d 739, 747 (E.D. Va. 2016) (citing Amato v. City of Richmond , 875 F. Supp. 1124, 1132–33 (E.D. Va. 1994) ).As to the first prong of the § 1983......