Edwards v. Schwartz, Case No. 7:18-cv-378

Decision Date19 March 2019
Docket NumberCase No. 7:18-cv-378
Citation378 F.Supp.3d 468
Parties Marc EDWARDS, Plaintiff, v. Paul SCHWARTZ, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia

378 F.Supp.3d 468

Marc EDWARDS, Plaintiff,
v.
Paul SCHWARTZ, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 7:18-cv-378

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division.

Signed March 19, 2019
Filed March 20, 2019


378 F.Supp.3d 477

Jeremiah Andrew Denton, III, Jeremiah Andrew Denton, IV, Jeremiah A. Denton III, P.C., Virginia Beach, VA, for Plaintiff.

Alexander Davis Hawgood, William Moran, II, Pro Hac Vice, Arthur Phillip Hawgood, III, Hawgood Hawgood & Associates, LLC, Columbia, MD, for Defendants Paul Schwartz, Melissa Mays.

Alexander Davis Hawgood, William Moran, II, Pro Hac Vice, Arthur Phillip Hawgood, III, Hawgood Hawgood & Associates, LLC, Columbia, MD, Guy M. Harbert, III, Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore, Roanoke, VA, for Defendant Yanna Lambrinidou.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Michael F. Urbanski, Chief United States District Judge

This matter is before the court on a motion to dismiss, ECF No. 13, plaintiff Marc Edwards' Amended Complaint, ECF No. 9, filed by defendants Paul Schwartz, Yanna Lambrinidou, and Melissa Mays (hereinafter, collectively, "defendants"), pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for want of personal jurisdiction and failure to

378 F.Supp.3d 478

state a claim upon which relief can be granted, respectively. The defendants have also moved for attorney's fees pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-223.2. This matter was removed from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Virginia, to the United States District Court for Western District of Virginia on August 1, 2018. This court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.1 Edwards filed his Amended Complaint on August 24, 2018, alleging defamation per se (Count I), defamation (Count II), tortious interference with contract expectancy, business relationship, and economic advantage (Count III), common civil law conspiracy (Count IV), and statutory civil conspiracy pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-499 (Count V), against all defendants. The court held a hearing on October 29, 2018, after which it ordered Edwards to file a supplemental brief (henceforth "Supplemental Memorandum") identifying which of the numerous statements set forth in the Amended Complaint allegedly give rise to causes of action under Count I and Count II. The court requested the Supplemental Memorandum include only those statements that fall within Virginia's statute of limitations period for defamation. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-247.1 (West).2 On November 9, 2018, Edwards filed this memorandum with the court. ECF No. 27. Schwartz and Mays filed a response on November 16, 2018, ECF No. 30, and Lambrinidou filed a separate response on November 21, 2018, ECF No. 31. Upon thorough examination of the voluminous submissions made by the parties and for the reasons set forth herein, the motion to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is GRANTED as to Counts I–V.

I.

A.

The controversy giving rise to this case relates to protracted personal, professional, and advocacy-related disputes concerning the water crisis in Flint, Michigan. Marc Edwards, a Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University ("Virginia Tech") professor involved in exposing the contamination in Flint, Michigan, claims that prior to the events giving rise to this case, he "enjoyed a distinguished reputation in the community at large and an unblemished professional reputation in the fields of education, science, and community advocacy." ECF No. 9, at 2–3. Edwards' causes of action in Counts I–V are predicated upon an allegedly defamatory letter ("Letter") published on May 10, 2018, "as well as numerous subsequent dates," and a multitude of other statements made via "Facebook posts, Twitter tweets, television interview, radio interviews, emails, correspondence,

378 F.Supp.3d 479

and other public fora." Id. at 5, 24. The statements alleged as defamatory or defamatory per se fall into two categories: (1) those contained in the Letter, and (2) and those contained in communications made via Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and elsewhere. It is the Letter, however, that by Edwards' own characterization, is "at the heart of this case." ECF No. 21, at 4 ; see id. at 29 ("[T]he case arises from this Letter ...").

Edwards asserts that the Letter marked the "crescendo" of a concerted and ongoing disparagement campaign conducted by the defendants against him that began in 2016. ECF No. 9, at 4. The Letter accuses Edwards of, among other things, speaking on behalf of Flint residents without their consent, engaging in "[u]nsubstantiated defamation of Flint residents," and obstructing "Flint's right for self-determination." ECF No. 9–1 ; ECF No. 27–1, at 2. In the course of this litigation, Edwards submitted three versions of the Letter for the court's review. Though each version of the Letter is substantively the same, the quantity and identities of the signatories differ. The first version of the Letter was submitted with the Amended Complaint as Exhibit 1, ECF No. 9–1, and featured the signatures of 39 Flint workers, parents, and residents, including Melissa Mays, as well as an Episcopal priest. It is this first version of the Letter that was apparently sent on May 10, 2018 as an email attachment to, among others, Virginia Tech president Timothy Sands, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the National Academy of Sciences, the Association of Environmental and Engineering Science Professors, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science Foundation, and several individuals within Edwards' professional community or associated with the aforementioned organizations. ECF No. 9, at 6. The content of the email is as follows:

Esteemed President Sands,

Residents of Flint request you tell us where we can file a formal complaint against the behavior, since January 2016, of Professor Marc Edwards of Virginia Tech. We also request that you send representatives to Flint as soon as possible for a meeting with us to hear directly from us about our experiences with Mr. Edwards and our call for an investigation into Mr. Edwards' conduct and the harm his actions have caused.

Attached is our full complaint. Thank you for your time and immediate attention on this matter.

Affected Residents of Flint, Michigan

Id. The Letter itself is addressed "To the Scientific and Engineering Communities." Id. The following "false and harmful" statements from the Letter were flagged by Edwards as defamatory and/or defamatory per se and are excerpted and numbered below as they were presented in paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint.3 Id. at 5. The bolded portions of paragraphs 13(a) – 13 (i) were bolded by Edwards, presumably to direct the court's attention specifically to those statements and/or sentences.

Paragraph 13(a)

Residents of Flint.... Also request that you send representatives to Flint as soon as possible for a meeting with us to hear directly from us about our experiences with Mr. Edwards and our call for an investigation into Mr. Edwards' conduct and the harm his actions have caused.

Paragraph 13(b)
378 F.Supp.3d 480
This is dishonest, paternalistic and exploitative and, we fear, used by Mr. Edwards to build his own professional and financial power ... Far too many residents are exhausted from Mr. Edwards [sic] bullying ... Mr. Edwards is using our crisis and suffering for entertainment, intrigue, exhibitionism, and personal power that might attract the media and outside readers but are completely inappropriate for the circumstances.

Paragraph 13(c)

Mr. Edwards' portrayal of Flint residents as dumb, dirty and vulnerable to being misled by anyone other than himself started in early 2016, is ongoing, and is misguided and offensive

...

Paragraph 13(d)

Contrary to Mr. Edwards' claims, Flint residents were never told that shigella was in our tap water and, as a whole, never stopped using proper hygiene from fear of the water. The allegation that FACHEP announced that they found shigella in Flint water is a lie. The allegation that WE caused our own shigella outbreak because we stopped bathing out of fear of the water, is also a lie.

Paragraph 13(e)

What scares us is Mr. Edwards who uses his position as a scientist to misrepresent us and silence us.

Paragraph 13(f)

In May 2016, Mr. Edwards erroneously accused Scott Smith and Water Defense of scaring residents out of bathing.... Mr. Edwards also accused Dr. Laura Sullivan and Mr. McElmurry of FACHEP [Flint Area Community Health and Environment Partnership] of causing Flint residents to stop bathing because their research scared us (according to some reports, Mr. Edwards made the preposterous claim that as many as 80% of us returned to a state of filth). This is insulting and false. It is also blatantly unscientific because Mr. Edwards did not bother to ask actual Flint residents about our bathing habits before coming up with this pronouncement.

Paragraph 13(g)

To our knowledge, there is no one in the scientific community overseeing Mr. Edwards' work or the way he uses his power over powerless residents. As far as we know there is no one in the scientific community ensuring
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Consol Energy, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • June 4, 2020
    ...pendent personal jurisdiction, particularly in these instances where both claims are federal claims. See, e.g., Edwards v. Schwartz, 378 F. Supp. 3d 468, 491 (W.D. Va. 2019) ; Gatekeeper Inc. v. Stratech Sys., 718 F. Supp. 2d 664, 667–68 (E.D. Va. 2010) (critiquing pendent jurisdiction on t......
  • United States v. Bank
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • May 8, 2019
  • Meadows v. Northrop Grumman Innovation Sys., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • January 29, 2020
    ...email was received (i.e., opened and read)." Galustian v. Peter, 561 F.Supp.2d 559, 565 (E.D. Va. 2008) ; see also Edwards v. Schwartz, 378 F.Supp.3d 468, 502 (W.D. Va. 2019) ("In defamation cases, Virginia courts apply the substantive law of the state where the defamatory statements were f......
  • Lokhova v. Halper
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • February 27, 2020
    ...to reach this issue on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. See Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458, 464 (4th Cir. 2007) ; Edwards v. Schwartz, 378 F. Supp. 3d 468, 522–24 (W.D. Va. 2019) (reaching the affirmative defense of substantial truth at the motion to dismiss stage based on the allegations in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • FORD'S UNDERLYING CONTROVERSY.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 99 No. 4, April 2022
    • April 1, 2022
    ...284, 289 (1st Cir. 1999); Gatekeeper Inc. v. Stratech Sys., Ltd., 718 F. Supp. 2d 664, 667-68 (E.D. Va. 2010); Edwards v. Schwartz, 378 F. Supp. 3d 468,491 (W.D. Va. 2019). (165.) See Interface Biomedical Lab'ys Corp. v. Axiom Med., Inc., 600 F. Supp. 731,732 (E.D.N.Y. 1985). (166.) See id.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT