Couzens, Jr. v. Donohue, No. 15-3635 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit in state court against defendants, alleging claims of defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleged that defendants published false information to discredit and humiliate him in retaliation for his public allegations that he was sexually abused by priests. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's orders denying plaintiff's motion for remand and dismissing his causes of action for failure to state a claim. The court agreed with defendants that Missouri Defendants McLiney and O'Laughlin were fraudulently joined; Defendants KCCL sufficiently consented to removal; and thus the court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion for remand. The court also affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's defamation claim as time-barred under Missouri's borrowing statute. Because plaintiff alleged that false statements injured his reputation, defamation, not invasion of privacy, was in fact the basis of his cause of action. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's invasion of privacy claim. Finally, the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Court Description: Wollman, Author, with Riley and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Torts. Defendants removed this action alleging defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and other torts based on claims defendants published false information about plaintiff after he publicly alleged he was sexually abused by Catholic priests; the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion to remand the matter to Missouri state court as two defendants were fraudulently joined to defeat diversity; defendant KCCL sufficiently consented to removal under the facts presented; the district court did not err in dismissing the defamation action as time-barred under New York law, which must be applied under Missouri's borrowing statute; defamation is the proper remedy under Missouri law for plaintiff's false light invasion of privacy claim, and the district court did not err in dismissing the false light claim; plaintiff failed to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because the only offending conduct was defamation; nor did he state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Judge Kelly, concurring.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.