VENICE, Fla. (1010 WINS) — A Florida judge on Thursday denied Brian Laundrie's family's motion to dismiss a March civil lawsuit filed by Gabby Petito's family, allowing the case to head to a jury trial next year.
The lawsuit, filed against the Laundries, alleges that they knew their son — who died of an apparent suicide amid a manhunt for his arrest — murdered the 22-year-old Long Island native and were attempting to help him flee the country. It also alleges the Laundrie family "acted with malice or great indifference to the rights of" Gabby's parents.
The lawsuit, which seeks at least $100,000, alleges that the Petito family suffered mental anguish because of the Laundrie family's "willfulness and maliciousness."
The Laundrie family, whose son died by suicide after admitting to killing Petito on a cross-country road trip last year, did not appear during last Wednesday's pre-trial hearing before Judge Hunter W. Carroll in Sarasota County Circuit Court. At the end of the hearing, Carroll said he would decide whether to grant the motion to dismiss in two weeks.
On Thursday, Carroll ruled the Petitio family had a valid claim against the Laundries, ruling it was not "necessary or appropriate in this case to resolve these constitutional claims on a motion to dismiss," NBC Tampa affiliate WFLA reports.
"The contours of the facts are not sufficiently distilled to apply those important guarantees. Those claims are more appropriately addressed, if at all, at the summary judgment stage," according to the order. "If the facts of this case truly were about silence with no affirmative act by the Laundries, the Court would have resolved this case in the Laundries' favor on the concept of legal duty, or more precisely, the lack of any legal duty for the Laundries to act. Had the Laundries truly stayed silent, the Court would have granted the motion to dismiss in the Laundries' favor."
Carroll said that if "the Laundries made their statement knowing that Gabby was dead, knowing the location of her body, and knowing that her parents were frantically looking for her," as alleged by the Petito family, then "the Laundries' statement was particularly callous and cruel, and it is sufficiently outrageous to state claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress."
The judge also disputed a contention made in the Laundries' motion to dismiss that persons in similar circumstances would face an "avalanche of litigation."
"There will be no avalanche of litigation based on denying the Laundrie's motion to dismiss," he added. "None [of the additional arguments] are sufficient to preclude the Court at the motion to dismiss stage from concluding that the Amended Complaint states causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress."
Steven Bertolino, the Laundrie family's attorney, said in a statement that he and his clients were "disappointed" with Carroll's decision.
"Judge Carroll points out that the Sept. 14, 2021 statement, standing alone, does not suggest outrage, but within the context of the other allegations in the case, the plaintiffs have met the threshold to go forward to the next phase," Bertolino said. "The Laundries will continue to use all available legal means to preserve their rights."
Barring any further filings, the trial is set to begin in August 2023.
Related
Related
