Emotional distress claim vs. accuser survives dismissal

A doctor who claimed he was arrested twice on false charges of stalking and domestic violence can sue his accuser for intentional infliction of emotional distress, or IIED.

A federal trial court denied the accuser’s motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint “satisfies the threshold for pleading a legally sufficient claim of IIED in Virginia.”

Judge Robert E. Payne of the Eastern District of Virginia also found that plaintiff’s claim was not time-barred because the statute of limitations was tolled while criminal charges were pending.

The May 13 opinion is Khoraki v. Longoria, et al. (VLW 022-3-210).

False accusations

After meeting on a dating app, Jad Khoraki and Josephine Wallace dated from March 2019 to December 2019. Shortly after their relationship ended, Wallace made several reports to Richmond police that Khoraki had stalked and assaulted her between Jan. 20, 2020, and Jan. 25, 2020.

Based on Wallace’s statements, Derrick Longoria, a Richmond police officer, arrested Khoraki on Jan. 26, 2020. He was released on bond the same day.

On Jan. 29, 2020, Wallace met with Longoria to make additional claims that Khoraki had assaulted, strangled and threatened her with a firearm in September 2019. She also petitioned for a protective order.

Khoraki was arrested again on Feb. 6, 2020, and held without bond. His defense attorney learned from a Chesterfield commonwealth’s attorney and a detective that Wallace had a history of making false accusations, including rape, against men she met on dating apps.

On Feb. 12, 2020, the attorney notified Longoria and Jaime Blackmon, a Richmond deputy commonwealth’s attorney, of Wallace’s history and gave them contact information for the Chesterfield authorities.

At Khoraki’s bond hearing two days later, Khoraki’s attorney provided a report from Chesterfield police that detailed Wallace’s history of false accusations dating back to 2018 and highlighted that those accusations closely tracked what she had said about Khoraki.

Although Longoria and Blackmon reviewed the report prior to the hearing, only Longoria agreed that Khoraki should be released and the charges dismissed. Blackmon opposed bond because of the violence alleged. Khoraki was released on $10,000 secured bond and ordered to wear an electronic monitor.

The charges were finally dismissed on Feb. 27, 2020, and the protective order was dismissed on March 10, 2020.

Irreparable harm

Khoraki filed suit on Feb. 2, 2022, for malicious prosecution against Longoria, Blackmon and Wallace, as well as for IIED against Wallace individually. He alleged that the false allegations, his arrests and time in jail had caused him irreparable harm.

He said he was humiliated when police contacted his employer and arrested him at a friend’s house, and that his employer and colleagues now treat him differently. He added that he requires therapy because he suffers from nightmares, flashbacks and stress.

Khoraki’s complaint “alleges that Wallace had made substantially similar, and baseless, charges against another man. Also, it is alleged that she has a history of making baseless allegations. Therefore, Wallace’s conduct falls evenly within Virginia’s definition of outrageous conduct.”

– U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne

Wallace moved to dismiss the IIED claim against her.

In Virginia, a person is liable for IIED if their conduct is: (1) intentional or reckless; (2) outrageous and intolerable; (3) causally connected to the victim’s emotional distress; and (4) the cause of severe distress.

Without pointing to a specific element, Wallace argued that Khoraki failed to adequately state an IIED claim.

The judge disagreed.

First, Payne noted Khoraki’s pleadings alleged that Wallace fabricated allegations specifically to have him prosecuted and that she knew or should have known that those false accusations would likely result in his emotional distress.

Next, the judge found that Khoraki had sufficiently pled outrageous and intolerable conduct, noting that “[f]iling false police reports has been deemed outrageous and intolerable under Virginia law; in fact, Virginia has criminalized the conduct.”

Here, Khoraki’s complaint “alleges that Wallace had made substantially similar, and baseless, charges against another man. Also, it is alleged that she has a history of making baseless allegations. Therefore, Wallace’s conduct falls evenly within Virginia’s definition of outrageous conduct.”

Payne credited Khoraki’s allegations that he continues to seek therapy due to the traumatic experience of being wrongfully prosecuted, all of which impacted his work and interpersonal relationships.

Finally, the judge said Khoraki’s allegation that he needs therapy because he “suffers from nightmares, flashbacks, extreme stress and fear” satisfied the severity requirement for IIED claims.

Statute of limitations

Wallace also argued that Khoraki’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations because she made her accusations on Jan. 3, 2020, and he filed suit on Feb. 2, 2022.

But the judge cited Virginia Code § 8.01-229(K), which tolls the limitations period of a damages claim during the pendency of criminal prosecution arising out of the same facts.

Payne found that Khoraki’s claims were tolled from Jan. 25, 2020, when the first warrant for his arrest was issued, until March 10, 2020, when the criminal charges against him were dismissed.

“The latest date the cause of action could have accrued was March 10, 2020, once Khoraki was released from all claims stemming from Wallace’s allegations [because] his IIED cause was suspended until then,” the judge concluded.

Thomas L. Johnson Jr. of Richmond firm Bricker, Anderson & Johnson presented the plaintiff. He declined to comment given the ongoing litigation.

The parties are scheduled for a settlement conference on Aug. 23.