Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania - A recent memorandum from Judge Gibbons of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas sheds light on the ongoing legal battle between Philip Godlewski and Brienna DuBorgel. The case involves claims and counterclaims of defamation, invasion of privacy, and various forms of abuse stemming from an affidavit DuBorgel provided in a related case. Both parties sought partial summary judgment, asking the court to rule on certain claims before a potential trial.
The backstory involves plaintiff Philip Godlewski suing Brienna DuBorgel over an affidavit she signed for another case (Godlewski v. Kelly, et al.). In that affidavit, DuBorgel detailed a sexual relationship with Godlewski starting when she was 15 and he was 25. Godlewski, who previously pleaded guilty to corruption of minors involving "inappropriate text messages and contact" with a minor, cried defamation and invasion of privacy. DuBorgel didn't just defend; she countersued, alleging Godlewski defamed her, invaded her privacy, and committed assault, battery, IIED, and NIED against her. Both sides tried to knock out claims via partial summary judgment motions.
Godlewski's Claims Shut Down!
Why? Truth.
The judge found the core allegations in DuBorgel's affidavit (that there was a relationship and that Godlewski was charged with crimes relating to it) were substantially true, pointing to Godlewski's own guilty plea and admitted text messages as evidence.
Since truth is an absolute defense, Godlewski's defamation and related false light claims went down in flames! 🔥
Godlewski in his Complaint claims that he and DuBorgel did not have a sexual relationship while she was a minor. The aforementioned text messages, which Godlewski's own guilty plea admits the validity of, reveal otherwise. Godlewski attempts to split hairs and say he was not convicted of"sex offenses" relating to a sexual relationship with DuBorgel. The precise wording of DuBorgel's affidavit states that Godlewski was charged with crimes "relating to [their] sexual relationship." There can be no dispute that this is true, as the original criminal complaint against Godlewski charged him with Statutory Sexual Assault, 18 Pa. C.S. § 3122.1, Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse, 18 Pa. C.S. § 3123(a)(7), Aggravated Indecent Assault, 18 Pa. C.S. § 3125(a)(8), Indecent Assault, 18 Pa. C.S. § 3126(a)(8), and the offense which Godlewski later pied guilty to, Corruption of Minors, 18 Pa. C.S. § 6301 (a)(l ).
- Judge Gibbons of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas
Bottom line: You can't sue for defamation when the story checks out!
DuBorgel scored a MAJOR victory!
The judge flatly rejected Godlewski's "it was consensual" defense, citing settled Pennsylvania law: a minor under 16 can't consent, and any potential consent evaporates given a power imbalance (like a school employee and student relationship).
The court also confirmed the extended statute of limitations for child sexual abuse applied, keeping the claims timely.
Godlewski claims that DuBorgel failed to sufficiently plead intent on Godlewski's part, citing only a single text from DuBorgel as an adult in support. Id. at p. 27. We disagree. Specifically, throughout the Counterclaim, DuBorgel has alleged that Godlewski engaged in acts of child sexual, mental, and emotional abuse against her. It is quite difficult, if not impossible for us to conclude how anyone (especially a public school employee) would believe that this conduct was not likely to result in severe emotional distress.
- Judge Gibbons of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas
The court shot down Godlewski's defense that it was consensual, stating point-blank: a 15-year-old CANNOT legally consent, especially not with someone in a position of power!
by Author
What's Next?
Meanwhile, DuBorgel secured a court ruling validating her claims of assault and battery based on the relationship when she was a minor, leaving the fight primarily over damages on those counts. The remaining NIED and defamation counterclaims ensure this legal battle is far from finished.
DuBorgel's claims for assault and battery move forward! The only question now is damages. Plus, she still gets to argue that Godlewski caused her negligent emotional distress AND that he defamed her by calling her a liar on his livestreams!
by Author
The Key Points...
Rulings on Godlewski's Claims
Judge Gibbons made significant rulings dismissing Godlewski's primary claims against DuBorgel:
- Defamation Claim Dismissed: The court granted summary judgment in favor of DuBorgel on Godlewski's defamation claim. It found that the core statements in DuBorgel's affidavit regarding the relationship and related criminal charges were substantially true, supported by Godlewski's own guilty plea and admitted text messages from the time. Truth is considered a complete defense to defamation.
- False Light Invasion of Privacy Claim Dismissed: Similarly, Godlewski's claim that the affidavit placed him in a false light was dismissed. Since the court found the statements to be true, it concluded DuBorgel could not have acted with knowledge or reckless disregard of any falsity.
The court also ruled on several of DuBorgel's counterclaims against Godlewski:
- Assault and Battery Claims Upheld: The court granted summary judgment in favor of DuBorgel on her assault and battery claims. It rejected Godlewski's argument that the relationship was consensual, emphasizing that under Pennsylvania law, a minor under 16 cannot consent to sexual acts, and consent is negated by a power imbalance, such as that between a school employee and student. Godlewski's own admitted text messages supported these claims. The court also confirmed these claims were not barred by the statute of limitations due to laws concerning child sexual abuse.
- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) Claim Dismissed: While acknowledging potential grounds for the claim based on the alleged abuse, the court dismissed DuBorgel's IIED claim because she failed to provide the required expert medical evidence to prove severe emotional distress, a necessary component for IIED claims in Pennsylvania.
- Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) Claim Proceeds: The court denied summary judgment on this claim, finding that DuBorgel had presented enough evidence to potentially proceed under theories like being in the "zone of danger," suffering physical impact (anxiety, depression), or having a "special relationship" with Godlewski.
- Defamation and False Light Claims Proceed: The court denied summary judgment on DuBorgel's claims that Godlewski defamed her and portrayed her in a false light through statements made on his livestreams (e.g., calling her a liar). Since Godlewski contested the falsity of these specific statements, the court ruled that this remains an issue to be decided at trial.
Comments 1
Be sure to give the article a 5 Star Rating! It helps with the search engines! 👍