PITTSBURGH — They were certainly girls, and they were demonstrably mean. That is the plaintiffs' response to motions in a Butler County lawsuit regarding sexual assault allegations, physical torment and psychological trauma.

The motion to strike the “scandalous and impertinent matter” became a focus of attention in December as responses were filed to a lawsuit brought by Alecia and Michael Flood Jr. in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh in October. The lawsuit claims their minor son, identified as T.F., suffered physical torment and psychological trauma as a result of false sexual assault allegations.

The suit alleges that one adult and four minors, Meghan Villegas and minors K.S., C.S., E.S. and H.R., falsely accused T.F. of sexual assault. It also accuses their parents, George Villegas Jr., Pam Villegas, David and Christy Sherk, David and Christine Seaman, Cris and Kimberly Salancy, and David and Lynn Reina of negligence.

Also on the list of defendants are Seneca Valley School District, Butler County District Attorney's Office and Butler County as entities that exercised gender-based discrimination and failed to properly investigate initial charges.

All defendants — with the exception of the Reina family, which remains unrepresented in the lawsuit — filed motions to dismiss the case in early December among motions to strike the “scandalous matter,” to which the Floods' lawyer, Craig L. Fishman, filed responses on Jan. 11.

Fishman used an urbandictionary.com definition of “mean girls” — which describes the term as referring to girls who are bullies and use “girl aggression,” such as nasty comments, trickery, deceit, spreading rumors, etc. — and argued “Meghan Villegas and the minor defendants were mean. Meghan Villegas and the minor defendants are girls. Meghan Villegas and the minor defendants are 'mean girls.'”

Fishman also provided evidence from minor defendant E.S.'s Instagram account in which she “engaged in witness intimidation shortly after this suit was filed.” The exhibit showed E.S.'s account bio to read “snitches get stitches,” which Fishman said is “behavior consistent with conduct of a 'mean girl' and of a 'tormentor.'”

In addition to requesting the denial of the motion to strike the term “mean girls” from the case, Fishman also responded to each of the defendants' subsequent motions.

Response to Meghan Villegas and minor defendants

Meghan Villegas and minor defendants C.S., K.S., E.S. and H.R. are accused of negligence, civil conspiracy, defamation, malicious prosecution, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, injurious falsehood, and fraudulent misrepresentations in the lawsuit.

The accused, except for H.R., filed motions to dismiss the case with a main argument of absolute privilege, which acts as a special right or immunity to say or write something without the risk of legal action for defamation, among other defenses.

Absolute privilege is typically used to protect victims of a crime and can only apply to counts of defamation, though the defendants attempted to apply it to all counts of the lawsuit.

Fishman, however, argued the absolute privilege does not protect this case as the defendants stated it would.

The defendants argue they are protected by absolute privilege because those who allegedly falsely reported the sexual assault did so to a mandated reporter.

However, Fishman said this does not cover the defendants because “the statute does not immunize those who make false reports.”

Fishman also responded to the motions to dismiss counts of defamation with the argument that “claiming an individual entered a residence without permission before committing a sexual assault is a defamatory communication.”

There was also a complaint from defendants that the “other students” — meaning those who reported the defendants for their falsehoods — are not identified in the lawsuit. Fishman responded: “If the defendants published their false allegations via the public address system at Heinz Field during a Steelers game, would plaintiffs' complaints be required to identify by name each person hearing the false allegations? The recipients of the defamatory communications are sufficiently identified in the complaint … .”

Fishman also pointed out that E.S., who argued the other students were not being identified, was also the same defendant who “attempted to intimidate witnesses” with her “snitches get stitches” Instagram bio.

Another consistent argument from all defendants was that the statute of limitations had expired July 2018, since that would mark one year since the first sexual assault allegation was mentioned.

Fishman retorted that the statue would expire Oct. 3, 2018, because Oct. 3, 2017, was when criminal action was taken against T.F. on behalf of K.S.

The second allegation didn't come until March 26, 2018, which makes that statute of limitations expire March 26, 2019. The lawsuit was filed Oct. 1, 2018.

Fishman agreed to strike Count IX for fraudulent misrepresentation from the plaintiffs' complaints as it is a “commercial tort not applicable to this case,” as contended by the Salancy family.

Response to Seaman family

Although most of the counts in the lawsuit applied to all of the defendants, there were a few individuals at whom additional accusations were aimed, such as David and Christine Seaman, minor defendant C.S.'s parents, who are accused of additional negligence due to a party at which minors consumed alcohol at their residence.

The Seaman parents' defense states they do not have social host liability to this situation because they did not plan the event or purchase, supply or serve the alcohol.

Fishman agreed to this point but argued they would still be responsible for “general poor supervision ... over the minors who congregated at their residence,” and he responded that the plaintiffs are not pursuing a claim for social host liability but for negligence.

Additionally, Fishman argued that all parents should be held responsible for counts of negligence in this case because “a non-negligent parent cannot wear blinders, fail to teach their children to refrain from making false criminal sexual assault allegations, and fail to know when their children are making such allegations.”

Response to Villegas family

Pam Villegas and George Villegas Jr., parents of defendant Meghan Villegas, are also responsible to answer to counts of parental negligence, even though their daughter was not a minor at the time of the incident.

The Villegas parents argued in their motions to dismiss that they could not be held responsible for their adult child's actions, but they cited a case in Michigan for this argument, Fishman said.

“Contrary to the Villegas' position, Pennsylvania law is not settled as to whether parents may be liable for the conduct of their adult children, if their negligence enabled the child's actions,” Fishman filed in response.

Response to Seneca Valley School District

Seneca Valley School District's motion to dismiss argued that the boy's rights were not violated, but Fishman disagrees.

Fishman argues that “T.F. and the mean girl students are similarly situated but were treated differently by Seneca Valley School District.”

T.F. was accused of sexual assault and his consequences included the inability to attend school and being unable to participate in school sports and extracurricular activities. The defendants, “who actually engaged in criminal conduct,” according to Fishman, made false reports to law enforcement authorities and suffered no consequences.

“The mean girls who falsely accused him never endured the shame of feeling cold steel on their wrists and ankles while being paraded through the school on a 'perp walk,'” Fishman said.

Fishman's response said that to state a “class-of-one” claim, the plaintiff must allege that “the defendant (Seneca Valley) treated him differently from other similarly situated; the defendant did so intentionally; and there was no rational basis for the difference in treatment.”

Fishman argued that all of these criteria were met as was the basis for gender discrimination and Title IX violation cases because the “plaintiff was punished as a result of a criminal accusation because he is a boy, but the female students were not punished because they are girls.”

Since the school district was the “moving force” behind T.F.'s prosecution, Fishman argues that Seneca Valley is responsible for the discrimination.

“By enforcing its sexual harassment policy against the minor plaintiff, a boy, but not against the 'mean girls' students, the defendant (Seneca Valley) engaged in gender-based reverse discrimination,” Fishman said. “Very simply, in the era of the 'Me Too Movement,' the Bill Cosby sexual assault prosecution, and the charges against Harvey Weinstein and many other celebrities, Seneca Valley School District, and the Butler County District Attorney's Office, made a conscious decision to prosecute and persecute men who sexually harass women, but not women who sexually harass men because they do not wish to appear to be anti-woman.”

Seneca Valley also argued in its motion to dismiss that the district was unaware of the allegations being deemed false, but Fishman said the district is definitely aware of that now and has still failed to discipline the girls responsible.

Response to Butler County

Fishman also responded to Butler County's motion regarding the lack of false sexual assault charges, saying, “one can surely conclude that if a District Attorney's Office establishes a policy that women are not to be prosecuted for murder, there would be a lot more dead husbands.”

Fishman wrote that a discriminatory motive influenced this decision and that the likelihood of these claims would increase “because there is not deterrent against women who make false sexual assault claims against men.”

“The mean girls would have been less likely to make false accusations against the minor Plaintiff if they knew that a substantial risk of criminal repercussions would result from their treachery,” Fishman wrote.

The county, which filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in December, also responded that “conditions of detention were reasonably required” due to the second false allegation of sexual abuse and not because of T.F.'s gender.

Fishman disagreed, stating that telling a minor to wear long pants “during the hottest days of summer” and restricting him from telling others about his ankle monitor were not “reasonably required,” and further illustrate the failures of the judicial system.

The plaintiffs also noted that the District Attorney's Office has not expunged T.F.'s record, which was promised to be done in September 2018, “resulting in yet another miscarriage of justice.”