Gaebel v. United States Polo Ass'n

• Decision Date: 12 May 2022
• Docket Number: 1:22-cv-141 (LMB/JFA)
• Parties: DARRELL GAEBEL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POLO ASSOCIATION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia

DARRELL GAEBEL, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES POLO ASSOCIATION, Defendant.

No. 1:22-cv-141 (LMB/JFA)

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division

May 12, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LEONIE M. BRINKEMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendant United States Polo Association's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (“Motion to Dismiss”). [Dkt. No. 21]. The Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) alleges that the United States Polo Association (“defendant” or “USPA”) defamed plaintiff Darrell Gaebel (“plaintiff' or “Gaebel”), breached its contract with him by not following its bylaws, and intentionally caused him emotional distress when it (1) brought disciplinary charges against him based on a complaint that he had called 14-year-old Aleem Siddiqui (“Siddiqui”) a racial slur during a polo match and bullied Siddiqui afterwards, (2) held an eight-hour hearing to determine whether there was a reasonable basis to believe the allegations, and (3) issued a final order stating that there was no reasonable basis to find that Gaebel used a racial slur. For the reasons stated in open court and more fully elaborated in this opinion, defendant's Motion to Dismiss has been granted.

1

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background^[1]

Gaebel is a 73-year-old retired United States Naval Commander and a senior level executive with a federal government contractor. [Dkt. No. 13] at 2. He is a registered member of the USPA. Id. On the evening of July 10, 2021, Gaebel was playing in a series of exhibition polo matches. Id. at ¶ 10. Although the polo matches were not organized by the USPA or held at a USPA member club, a USPA member club-Twilight Polo Club-organized the event and rented a location for it. Id.; [Dkt. No. 13-6] at 1. A large “U.S. Polo Assn.” banner was displayed on at least one side of the polo field. [Dkt. No. 13-7].

During the match, Siddiqui, a 14-year-old who played for a team opposing Gaebel's team, caused his horse to collide with-or as the Complaint states, “T-boned”-Gaebel and his horse, hurting plaintiff. [Dkt. No. 13] at ¶l 1. Gaebel claimed that he bent over in pain and exclaimed “motherfucker” at the ground, but Siddiqui claimed that Gaebel called him a “motherfucking nigger.” Id. at ¶¶l 1-12. After the match, Siddiqui immediately told his coach, Delora Burner, and his mother what he claimed Gaebel said. [Dkt. No. 13-3] at Ex. 2, Ex. 3. Burner then told the event's manager, John Gobin, who walked over to Gaebel and asked Gaebel to apologize to Siddiqui. Id. at Ex. 2. Gaebel claims that he approached Siddiqui and his family, “vehemently denied the accusation, ” and told plaintiff that he has never used a racial slur. [Dkt. No. 13] at ¶12. Burner and Siddiqui's mother claim that instead of apologizing, Gaebel bullied

2

Siddiqui by pushing his shoulder and repeatedly saying, “Didn't we already settle this kid?” [Dkt. No. 13-3] at Ex. 2, Ex. 3.

The next day, July 11, 2021, Burner and Siddiqui's mother each emailed the USPA to complain about the in-game and post-game incidents. [Dkt. No. 13-3] at Ex. 2, Ex. 3. Burner is a USPA member; Siddiqui's mother is not. [Dkt. No. 13] at ¶¶l3-14. On July 14, 2021, the USPA informed Gaebel that Burner filed what the USPA Disciplinary Procedures Policy (“DPP”) refers to as a “Conduct Violation Complaint” against him. [Dkt. No. 13-3] at 2. On July 23, 2021, the USPA emailed plaintiff a formal “Notice of Alleged Conduct Violations, Issuance of USPA Charges and Notice of Hearing” (“Notice”). [Dkt. No. 13] at ¶l 7; [Dkt. No. 13-3] at 1. The Notice charged Gaebel with violations of the USPA's Code of Conduct, informed him of “The Alleged Conduct Violations, ” and stated that a hearing would take place on Friday, August 6, 2021, over Zoom, during which plaintiff “will be entitled to present evidence, defend against the charges, and cross-examine witnesses.” [Dkt. No. 13-3] at 1-2. The Notice also informed plaintiff of the evidence that may be used against him. Id. at 3-4.

Before the hearing, Gaebel's counsel-Teresa Taylor, who played on plaintiff's team during the polo match in question-asked USPA outside counsel Craig Galle to clarify the procedures and rules for the hearing, including whether testifying witnesses would be sequestered. [Dkt. No. 13] at ¶¶26-27; [Dkt. No. 13-5] at 90:16-19. Galle responded that although witnesses generally would be sequestered, Siddiqui and his mother would not be, to which Taylor objected. [Dkt. No. 13-4] at 4, 8.

The hearing, which occurred on August 6, 2021, over Zoom, lasted eight hours and was judged by two USPA Hearing Officers. [Dkt. No. 13-6] at 2. At the outset, plaintiff's counsel objected to the USPA's jurisdiction on the ground that the DPP did not apply because the alleged

3

incident did not occur at a USPA event or club. Id. at 3; [Dkt. No. 13-5] at 16:18-17:6. The USPA noted the objection and stated that it would decide the issue after the hearing. [Dkt. No. 13-5] at 17:7-11. After that, the USPA presented five witnesses, and Gaebel's counsel presented 12 witnesses, including Gaebel. [Dkt. No. 13-6] at 2-3. “Of the seventeen witnesses who testified, only four-Aleem Siddiqui, Darrell Gaebel, George Krabbe [the umpire], and Brock Bromley [a 13-year-old player]- were physically present and able to hear with their own ears whether Mr. Gaebel used a racial slur.” Id. at 3. Of those four, only one-Siddiqui-testified that he heard Mr. Gaebel use a racial slur. Id. at 4.

The USPA issued a Final Order on August 20, 2021, in which, after finding that it had jurisdiction to consider Burner's Conduct Violation Complaint for at least two reasons, it found in favor of Gaebel. Id. at 3-4. In concluding that it had jurisdiction, defendant found that the DPP governs USPA member conduct “relative to the sport of polo, ” whether on or off the field, and that it therefore encompassed the alleged conduct. Id. at 3. It also found that “many of the bases for Mr. Gaebel's objection are factually inaccurate or inapposite, ” and that “the game was in fact a Club Event” because it was “played under the auspices of Twilight Polo Club, which leased the Great Meadow polo facility.” Id. at 4. On the Merits, the Final Order stated in full:

After hearing all the testimony and considering all of the evidence in this matter, which they and the [Executive Committee] take very seriously, the Hearing Officers have concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to find that Mr. Gaebel directed a racial slur at Aleem Siddiqui. In reaching this decision, the Hearing Officers do not reject Aleem's testimony. Rather, as the appointed representatives of the EC, they are obligated to apply the DPP's requirement that “[t]he burden of proof necessary to sustain a charge against a charged party shall be met if the [EC] reasonably believes, after hearing the evidence presented, that a Conduct Violation has occurred.” Here, although Aleem testified that Mr Gaebel directed the slur at him, Mr. Gaebel firmly denied doing so. Notably, the Umpire, Mr. Krabbe, testified that he heard Mr. Gaebel utter a vulgarity immediately after the collision, but he did not hear Mr. Gaebel use the racial slur. Additionally, Brock Bromley testified that he too heard Mr. Gaebel utter a vulgarity immediately after the collision but he did not hear Mr. Gaebel use the racial slur. Given the contradictory testimony of the parties, and the presumably

4

unbiased testimony of Mr. Krabbe, the Hearing Officers, acting for the EC, do not have a basis to reasonably believe that Mr. Gaebel directed a racial slur at Aleem Siddiqui, and therefore that a Conduct Violation occurred.”

Id. Accordingly, the UPSA dismissed the complaint against Gaebel. [Dkt. No. 22-3].^[2]

B. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed a complaint, dated September 29, 2021, in a Virginia circuit court against Burner, Siddiqui, and Siddiqui's parents for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, seeking roughly $8 million in damages and fees. [Dkt. No. 22-4], On December 15, 2021, plaintiff separately filed suit in a Virginia circuit court against the USPA for defamation, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, seeking over $2, 000, 000 in damages and fees. [Dkt. No. 1-1], The USPA was served on January 11, 2022, and it timely removed the Complaint to this court on February 9, 2022, asserting federal jurisdiction based on diversity. [Dkt. No. 1]. After the USPA filed a motion to dismiss, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on March 2, 2022. [Dkt. No. 13]. On March 11, 2022, the USPA filed the pending Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 21]. It has been fully briefed and oral argument has been held.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Defendant's renewed Motion to Dismiss challenges the sufficiency of the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which requires that a complaint be dismissed when it “fail [s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To survive this challenge, a

5

complaint must “contain [sufficient] factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Edley-Worford v. Va. Conf, of United Methodist Church, 430 F.Supp.3d 132, 139 (E.D. Va. 2019) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). When analyzing a complaint's sufficiency, a court assumes the truth of all well-pled facts and draws all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor; however, a court “need not accept the legal conclusions drawn from the facts, and [it] need not accept as true unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions or arguments.” Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd, v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008)).

B. Analysis

The Complaint asserts five causes of action, each of...