In opposition to motions to dismiss brought by St. Clair County officials, former circuit judge Ron Duebbert argues that his lawsuit sufficiently pleads malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress having faced embellished allegations that made his life “a living hell.”
On Sept. 15, Duebbert filed a response in opposition to moves to dismiss brought by the City of Belleville, Daniel Collins and Timothy Crimm.
Collins and Crimm are both St. Clair County detectives who investigated sexual abuse allegations by Carlos Rodriguez against Duebbert. Authorities later learned that Rodriguez had embellished his allegations, and charges were dropped in 2018.
Duebbert argues that his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is not barred by the statute of limitations because time begins to accrue when the last remaining criminal charge is dismissed.
He also argues his claims against the law enforcement officers for malicious prosecution are sufficient because he makes allegations of pressure or influence exerted by the officers and known misstatements by the officers to prosecutors, resulting in wrongful prosecution.
Additionally, the criminal prosecution was terminated in his favor and the prosecution lacked probable cause, Duebbert argues.
“It appears that these defendants are arguing that there was probable cause because they assert that when the affidavit was submitted there was no indication to them that the statements of Rodriguez were false, or his affidavit was suspect," Duebbert's response states.
“That is a total misread of the allegations. The allegations of the complaint state that first there was the unusual change of plea for the chief complaining witness Rodriguez, the imposition of an unusually light new sentence, the lack of an actual statement of Rodriguez and reliance against standard police procedures in relying on only the said false affidavit, with the knowledge of these defendants that the affidavit was not true."
Duebbert also claims the defendants’ action demonstrate malice.
“It goes without saying that alleging participation in the fabrication of evidence against plaintiff is of sufficient severity to establish malice here,” the response states.
As for his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, Duebbert argues that his allegation is properly plead and valid.
“This case presents a unique situation,” his response states. “Given the pleadings, plaintiff was a circuit judge, and he was accused of a sexual crime in the practice of his profession and further has been denied to operate in his position by these defendants, and his good name has been defamed by a sexual crime, and he was accused of a sexual crime, and his life has been made literally a living hell.”
As law enforcement officers, Duebbert argues they stood in a position of power or authority to damage his interests.
In regards to his conspiracy claims, Duebbert argues that his allegations are not vague and discovery will disclose the exact details of the wrongful prosecution.
“Specifically, plaintiff alleged that there is a reason that certain individuals did conspire against him, and that is that he was a Republican in a very Democratic county and he defeated a long time politician and Judge John Baricevic and many persons in power did not like that fact that he was upsetting the long time order of things,” the response states.
Belleville, Collins and Crimm filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss on Sept. 23 through attorneys Julie Bruch and Brian Funk of O’Halloran Kosoff Geitner & Cook LLC in Northbrook, Ill.
They argue that the statute of limitations for intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against law enforcement officers begins to accrue on the date of the arrest, because Duebbert was never convicted of a crime.
The defendants argue that dismissal of the malicious prosecution is appropriate, noting that the Illinois Supreme Court held that “the abandonment of the criminal proceedings must compel an inference that there existed a lack of reasonable grounds to pursue the criminal prosecution. Otherwise, every time criminal charges are nol-prossed a civil malicious prosecution action could result.”
The defendants further argue that their “role in Duebbert’s criminal charges was minimal,” as the claims focus on acts that took place after they gave Rodriguez’s affidavit to the State’s Attorney.
They add that there was probable cause.
“Here, it is undisputed that Rodriguez signed an affidavit which was presented to Crimm and Collins claiming that Duebbert committed criminal acts,” the reply states. “Such allegations support probable cause to bring criminal charges.”
“While Duebbert argues that Rodriguez was not credible, he has not plead any specific facts other than improper conclusions without support that at the time the Belleville defendants met with Rodriguez and his attorney, that there was anything about the meeting that would make it clear to a reasonable person that Rodriguez’s affidavit was not credible,” it continues.
Special prosecutors Lorinda Lamken-Finnell, David Robinson and the Office of the State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor filed a reply to Duebbert’s response to their motion to dismiss on Sept. 28 through Special Assistant Attorney General Karen McNaught.
They argue that they are entitled to prosecutorial immunity as Duebbert’s allegations of falsified evidence and perjury are “completely unsupported by facts.”
“Plaintiff has the burden of pleading facts, not conclusions. There is nothing to suggest what evidence Robinson and Lamken-Finnell allegedly fabricated or who they allegedly induced to give perjured testimony. The evidence existed before they were involved,” the reply states.
The defendants further argue that Rodriguez’s claims, if true, could have constituted crimes of solicitation of a sex act, battery, intimidation, and criminal sexual abuse. Therefore, bringing charges was “within the normal and official functions of a prosecutor.”
St. Clair County and former State's Attorney Brendan Kelly also filed a reply to Duebbert’s prior response in opposition to their motion to dismiss on Sept. 28 through attorney Garrett Hoerner of Becker Hoerner & Ysursa in Belleville. They adopted and incorporated the arguments raised in the state defendants’ reply.
Kelly added that claims against him should be dismissed with prejudice, because “Mr. Kelly is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity from liability.” He claims the only detailed factual allegation against him is that he filed a motion for appointment of a special prosecutor in his capacity as former St. Clair County State’s Attorney.
Attorney Alex Enyart filed a reply to Duebbert’s previous response on Sept. 29 through attorney A.J. Bronsky of Brown & James in St. Louis.
He argues that probable cause “clearly” existed in the criminal complaint against Duebbert and that he “mistakes ‘embellish’ for ‘falsehood.’”
“Plaintiff in support of his claim for malicious prosecution attempts to bootstrap claims that the victim changed his plea in an unrelated criminal case and received a different sentence that this somehow changes the analysis of the existence of probable cause,” Enyart argues.
Enyart argues that he is a private attorney who represented a man claiming he was a victim of a sexual advance.
“There is no case holding the attorney for a complaining victim of a crime liable for malicious prosecution. There is no allegation that Enyart fabricated a false affidavit,” the reply states.
Calling the case “a unique situation,” Enyart argues that he did nothing wrong and cannot be held liable for demanding “legal rights in a permissible way.”
“Plaintiff was not denied his opportunity to practice as a judge due to a judiciary inquiry related to plaintiff’s misstatements to police in a murder investigation. Also, one wonders how allegations of sexual misconduct could have defamed him when unrelated claims of sexual misconduct were made public during the plaintiff’s campaign for a judicial position in 2015,” the reply states.
Further, Enyart argues that “accidental, inadvertent, or negligent participation in a common scheme does not amount to conspiracy; likewise, the innocent performance of an act that fortuitously furthers the tortious purpose of another is not actionable under the theory of conspiracy.”
According to Duebbert’s complaint, Enyart represented Rodriguez in 2017 when he signed as affidavit accusing Duebbert of sexual abuse. Enyart gave the affidavit to Collins and Crimm. They allegedly gave it to Lamken-Finnell and Robinson, who then filed two felony counts of sexual abuse and two misdemeanor counts.
Duebbert claims the defendants learned that Rodriguez embellished the affidavit but failed to disclose the information. Instead, they allegedly offered a plea agreement.
Charges against Duebbert were dismissed in 2018.
St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 20-L-56