Defendants seek dismissal of suit filed by former Scott City mayor

The attorney for former Scott City Mayor Ron Cummins plans to file a second amended petition to better detail allegations in a defamation suit filed against state Rep. Holly Rehder and two others.

Attorneys for the three defendants in the civil suit argued at a hearing Thursday in Scott County Circuit Court in Benton, Missouri, the case should be dismissed.

But Judge David Dolan continued the case to allow Cummins' attorney, Patrick Davis, time to lay out the allegations in more detail. The judge scheduled another hearing for 9 a.m. Aug. 23 in Benton.

The lawsuit, filed in December, accuses Rehder, former Mayor Tim Porch and Scott City resident Cindi Davidson Brashear of publishing "defamatory statements against the plaintiff alleging malfeasance of office, corruption, theft in the form of misuse of public funds and other defamatory statements too numerous to list in this petition."

It seeks punitive damages.

Cummins resigned in August amid a call by Rehder for an investigation into allegations he abused his position as mayor.

Rehder told the Southeast Missourian in 2017 the suit is "frivolous." The Missouri Attorney General's Office is representing Rehder because she is a state lawmaker.

The suit accuses Rehder of making defamatory statements about Cummins to reporters and the lawmaker wrote a letter to law enforcement alleging "various misdeeds."

"Defendant Rehder presented a recall petition to the press alleging the allegations therein were true after being advised by law enforcement that they were not true," the suit states.

The suit alleges Porch, in various texts, accused Cummins, who was then mayor, of illegally firing city employees. According to the suit, Porch knew the mayor "could not fire anyone."

According to the suit, Porch "publicly demanded criminal investigations" of Cummins and claimed he was "a thief."

Brashear is accused of presenting a recall petition containing "false and defamatory statements which were presented as true."

Davis said in the petition "the defamatory communications made by the defendants were each done intentionally and were false." It alleges all three individuals knew the statements were false "when the statements were uttered or published."

But attorney Katherine Walsh, representing Rehder, said in a court filing Cummins was a public figure. As a result, he would have to prove actual malice, Walsh said.

"The public's right to be informed about public business and the conduct of those in the public arena can override a public official's interest to be free of erroneous attacks," she wrote.

Rehder is also "protected in her speech when informing the public about the conduct of a public official," Walsh said.

Attorney Phil Dormeyer said in a court filing the opinions of his client, Brashear, are protected by the First Amendment. Dormeyer argued in court the facts don't prove actual malice.

Davis responded the case should not be dismissed, but rather tried in court.

"I understand Mr. Cummins is a public figure. I have to prove actual malice," he said. But Davis told the judge, "You can't go around and call people a thief."

Porch's attorney, John Schneider, said in a court filing his client "has a First Amendment right to comment and opine on public figures in his community."

Schneider told the judge the allegations in the lawsuit are not specifically detailed. "The problem we have in this case is that there are no facts," he said.

mbliss@semissourian.com

(573) 388-3641