Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 08-23-2024
Case Style:
Frederick E. Oberholzer v. Simon and Toby Galapo
Case Number: 2016-11267
Judge: Not Available
Court: Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Norristown, Pennsylvania private nuscience, intrusion upon seclusion, defamation - libel and slander, publicly placing Plaintiffs in a false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Dr. Simon and Toby Galapo (appellants) own a home in Abington Township, Montgomery County, the rear yard of which borders the property of Frederick and Denise Oberholzer (appellees). Although the properties are separated by a creek, low-lying shrubs, and some tall trees, the houses and yards remain visible to one another. In November 2014, a brewing feud between the neighbors over landscaping issues reached a boiling point after Dr. Galapo confronted Mr. Oberholzer about a resurveyed property line and Mrs. Oberholzer responded by calling him a "fucking Jew."[1] This prompted the Galapos in June 2015 to erect the first of many signs primarily displaying anti-hate and anti-racist messages "along the back tree-line directly abutting [the Oberholzers'] property line, pointed directly at [the Oberholzers'] house, and in direct sight of [other] neighbors' houses." Amended Complaint, 7/5/16, at ¶12. All told, the Galapos posted twenty-three signs over a years-long span, during which the neighbors continued to quarrel over other minor nuisances.[2]
On June 7, 2016, the Oberholzers filed a civil complaint, which they amended on July 5, 2016. The amended complaint pleaded five causes of action: (1) private nuisance;
(2) intrusion upon seclusion; (3) defamation - libel and slander; (4) publicly placing the Oberholzers in false light; and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Amended Complaint, 7/5/16, at ¶¶65-109. The central theme underlying all claims was that the "signs were placed solely to harass, slander and defame [the Oberholzers], who are German by descent, by the Galapos, who putatively are Jewish by descent." Id. at ¶14. According to the Oberholzers, the "signs are so content-incendiary as to incite hatred, ridicule and disgust[.]" Id.; see id. at ¶13 (signs "consist of hate speech, slander and defamatory, unfounded innuendo and slurs directed openly and notoriously towards [the Oberholzers] and their property").
Outcome: Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs.
This case concerns the question of whether equity courts have the power to enjoin tortious speech when the plaintiff otherwise lacks an adequate remedy at law. The Galapos argue that the present injunction violates the no-injunction rule, that it is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech, and that it fails strict scrutiny. These arguments are unpersuasive. The no-injunction rule does not exist in Pennsylvania. Moreover, even if it did exist, it would not apply here because the equity court did not purport to enjoin defamatory speech. Furthermore, most states that have embraced the no-injunction rule have limited it to the preliminary injunction context. The argument that the injunction constitutes a prior restraint is also mistaken because the injunction does not restrict speech in advance of its publication. Finally, the injunction withstands application of strict scrutiny because it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: