From Tuesday's opinion by Manuel A. Capsalis (Va. Cir. Ct. Fairfax County) in Wright v. Landry (a case that has been covered in several posts on this blog):
Plaintiff Joshua Wright is a former professor at George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School …. He was distinguished for his scholarship and served as the Executive Director of the Global Antitrust Institute. He also managed a private consulting business, Plaintiff Lodestar Law and Economics …. In the summer of 2023, he resigned from his post at the Law School.
While a professor, he had romantic relationships with students. Allegations of sexual misconduct were brought to light by former students, Defendant Elyse Dorsey and Defendant Angela Landry. They publicly accused him of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in addition to reporting the allegations to a Title IX investigator.
Wright does not dispute that he had an ongoing sexual relationship with Dorsey and Landry while they were students at the Law School. He claims that the relationships were consensual, lasting far beyond their graduation. Dorsey and Landry disagree with Wright's characterization of the relationship, citing the power imbalance between teachers and students.
Public discussion about this matter ensued. Law360, among other media outlets, published articles. Wright subsequently brought a lawsuit against Defendants. He claimed that their allegations of misconduct were false which tarnished his reputation and caused him substantial financial harm. The lawsuit contained a count of tortious interference, several counts of defamation, and counts of statutory and common law conspiracy. Plaintiffs prayed for a total of $108 million worth of damages in addition to injunctive relief prohibiting the publication or republication of the alleged defamatory statements.
Parties litigated this case extensively until Dorsey settled with Plaintiffs, and a nonsuit was taken on the eve of trial against Landry.
Landry moved for sanctions, basically claiming that the tortious interference claim and its damages demand were frivolous; but the court said no:
