Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-04756/USCOURTS-ca3-14-04756-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 14-4756

_____________

MAHENDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI; 

TRIVEDI FOUNDATION; 

TRIVEDI MASTER WELLNESS, LLC,

 Appellants

v.

TANIA M. SLAWECKI

_____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ No. 4-11-cv-02390)

District Judge: Hon. Matthew W. Brann

______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

November 3, 2015

______________

Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge, JORDAN, and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Filed: February 10, 2016)

___________

OPINION*

___________

VANASKIE, Circuit Judge.

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 

does not constitute binding precedent.

Case: 14-4756 Document: 003112204155 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2016
2

Appellants Mahendra Kumar Trivedi, the Trivedi Foundation, and Trivedi Master 

Wellness, LLC (collectively referred to as “Trivedi”) appeal the District Court’s grant of 

summary judgment to Appellee Dr. Tania Slawecki on Trivedi’s claims of defamation 

and tortious interference with contractual relationships. For the reasons discussed below, 

we agree that Trivedi’s defamation claim fails as a matter of law because Trivedi, a 

limited purpose public figure, cannot show by clear and convincing evidence either the 

falsity of Slawecki’s statements or that they were made with actual malice. We also 

agree that Trivedi’s tortious interference claims fail as a matter of law because Trivedi 

has not put forth competent evidence that any existing or prospective contractual 

relationship was lost as a result of Slawecki’s conduct. Accordingly, we will affirm the 

District Court’s judgment.

I.

In 2009 Mahendra Kumar Trivedi became the subject of research undertaken at 

the Penn State Materials Research Laboratory by Dr. Rustum Roy, director of the 

laboratory. The purpose of the research was to test Trivedi’s assertions that he had

unique powers to transform the molecular properties of water. At that time, Dr. Tania 

Slawecki was a research associate in the lab, working under the direction of Dr. Roy. In 

2010, Dr. Roy became gravely ill. He passed away on August 26, 2010.

In the Spring of 2011, Slawecki posted on her personal website a 5-page article 

titled “Overview and Summary of Research on Mahendra Trivedi Conducted at Penn 

State University in 2009.” (App. 81.) In her article, Slawecki stated that the research had 

not corroborated Trivedi’s claim to be able to change the molecular properties of water. 

Case: 14-4756 Document: 003112204155 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2016
3

The article went on to assert that Trivedi’s physiology was “astounding” and “unusual.” 

(App. 83.) For instance, the article mentioned that he consumed up to 30 liters of water 

per day without having to urinate, did not sleep, and his pituitary gland was the size of an 

egg. Quoting from several sources, including one entitled “Casting Out Devils,” 

Slawecki speculated the Trivedi’s “condition could be viewed as a kind of spirit 

possession case.” (App. 83–84.) She also questioned whether Trivedi was the cause of 

Dr. Roy’s sudden demise. 

Several months after posting her article, Slawecki sent an email to her colleague, 

Heather McKinney, and Julie March, a former employee of Trivedi’s. In her email she 

complained about being “the sole person to defend the fact that (a) we found NOTHING 

to scientifically validate Trivedi and (b) Rustum Roy rescinded his support of Trivedi 

before Rusty died in August of last year.” (App. 600.) In the part of the email addressed 

to March (Trivedi’s former employee), Slawecki wrote:

MANY people are now coming forward and speaking out 

about the lies and deception of Trivedi and his so-called 

Foundation. They are scamming people and Trivedi himself 

keeps abusing women in horrible ways. The more voices 

speaking up, the better chance we have of putting a stop to 

this horror. . . .

. . . . 

When I heard you abandoned Trivedi in Az, I realized 

something had gone awry. I found him to be obnoxious, 

condescending to women, rude, demanding and generally 

unspiritual, totally obsessed with his own “powers” and never 

speaking of “love” ... and I thought he was so awful . . . . 

. . . . 

I would have never said anything except that a few months 

ago, a report[er], Dennis Lang, contacted me to validate that 

Case: 14-4756 Document: 003112204155 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/10/2016
4

we tested Trivedi here at Penn State and he wanted to know 

what we found. He was stunned when I said yes, we tested 

him extensively, but we found NOTHING. . . .

So it is really Dennis Lang, the reporter, who has dug and dug 

and ultimately been the one who has connected us all - many 

women who were misled by the “scientific proof” to believe 

in Trivedi and suffered abuses in his employ - and we’re 

banding together and stepping forward.

We now know Trivedi is taking human growth hormone 

injections which is what causes his pituitary to be enlarged, 

causes him to need to drink all that water, increases his 

virility and makes him irritable and nasty. Thus the data that 

shows his cartilage is like that of a 20 yr old is true because 

this is an effect of the HGH. He pretends to be celibate but is

driven to sex because of taking HGH. One 19 yr old girl he 

sexually abused, he beat her up so badly she wound up in the 

hospital. Her father pulled her out of the group and they are 

now pressing charges against Trivedi.

. . . .

I told Dennis Lang about your visit to our lab with Trivedi in 

July 2009 and your subsequent abandonment of him in a 

remote place in Arizona. We’d love to hear your story if 

you’re willing to share. Anything you wish to remain 

confidential certainly well [sic], but many are posting their 

experiences on the www.purqi.com website now to use it to 

warn others.

. . . . 

Julie, I hope you will add your voice to ours to not only warn 

others, but to help build our collective strength. One of his 

former employees is dedicated to “bringing him down.” She 

would benefit from your testimony as well. She has two 

attorneys she is working with and I am providing her with all 

the scientific data and reports I have that showed we saw 

nothing.

(App. 600–02.) Although sent only to McKinney and March, Slawecki’s 

email was disseminated by March to others.

Case: 14-4756 Document: 003112204155 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/10/2016
5

Slawecki obtained much of the information in her email from Gloria Zamora, 

former COO of Trivedi Master Wellness, LLC, and Dennis Lang, a journalist who was 

investigating Trivedi and his alleged unique abilities. Zamora had told Slawecki over the 

telephone that “Mr. Trivedi beat a nineteen-year-old girl to the extent that she required 

hospitalization and that her family was pressing charges.” (App. 212.) Dennis Lang had

forwarded Slawecki an email sent by one of Trivedi’s former students which stated: 

I talked with Chris, Madison’s mom[,] yesterday at great 

length and found out that [Trivedi] has been sexually 

molesting Madison who is underage and only 19 years old for 

quite some time. He also did the same thing with Chris[’s]

sister, Cathy[,] when she was his assistant. He apparently 

coerced them into sleeping with him . . . . 

(App. 299.) 

On December 28, 2011, Trivedi filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In the First Amended Complaint, Trivedi 

asserted a claim for defamation based upon the statements in Slawecki’s email that 

Trivedi had sexually abused women and that criminal charges had been filed against him. 

The First Amended Complaint also asserted claims of interference with existing and 

prospective contractual relationships. Specifically, Count 2 alleged that Slawecki 

intentionally interfered with relationships that Trivedi and his entities had established 

with certain persons, identified as “Affiliates,” who “perform functions such as marketing 

and promotion . . . .” (App. 72.) Count 3 alleged that Slawecki intentionally interfered 

with the relationship between Plaintiffs and their employees and clients, identifying one 

Case: 14-4756 Document: 003112204155 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/10/2016
6

employee and one client who severed their relationship with Trivedi as a result of 

Slawecki’s conduct. 

Following discovery, Slawecki moved for summary judgment. In an extensive 37-

page opinion, the District Court thoroughly addressed each claim and concluded that 

Slawecki was entitled to judgment in her favor. Trivedi timely filed this appeal.

II.

The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). We 

have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the District Court’s 

order granting summary judgment is plenary. Trinity Indus., Inc. v. Chi. Bridge & Iron 

Co., 735 F.3d 131, 134 (3d Cir. 2013). We view the evidence “in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party.” Id. at 134–35 (quoting Kurns v. A.W. Chesterton 

Inc., 620 F.3d 392, 395 (3d Cir. 2010)). Summary judgment is appropriate where the 

movant establishes “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

III.

A.

To prevail on a cause of action for defamation under Pennsylvania law,1a public 

figure must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a defamatory statement is false 

 

1 Because this case arises under diversity jurisdiction, we will apply the 

substantive law of the forum state, Pennsylvania. See Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 

U.S. 64, 78 (1938).

Case: 14-4756 Document: 003112204155 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/10/2016
7

and that the declarant made the statement with actual malice.2 Tucker v. Phila. Daily 

News, 848 A.2d 113, 127–28 (Pa. 2004); see also Phila. Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 

U.S. 767, 775 (1986) (“[A] public-figure plaintiff must show the falsity of the statements 

at issue in order to prevail in a suit for defamation.”); N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 

U.S. 254, 279–80 (1964) (holding that a public figure cannot succeed on a defamation 

claim unless the public figure “proves that the statement was made with ‘actual malice’”). 

Actual malice is present when a statement is made “with knowledge that it was false or 

with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 280. 

Reckless disregard “is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have 

published, or would have investigated before publishing.” St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 

U.S. 727, 731 (1968). Rather, there must be sufficient evidence “that the defendant in 

fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.” Id. “The question 

whether the evidence in the record in a defamation case is sufficient to support a finding 

of actual malice is a question of law.” Harte-Hanks Commc'ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 

U.S. 657, 685 (1989).

Trivedi’s defamation claim is based upon the statements in Slawecki’s July 28th 

email that Trivedi had committed sexual abuse and had been charged criminally. The 

District Court determined that a reasonable jury could not conclude by clear and 

convincing evidence that Slawecki’s statements in the July 28th email were false or that 

 

2 The parties agree that Trivedi is a limited purpose public figure. A limited 

purpose public figure must show that the statement was false and was made with actual 

malice in the same manner as a public figure. Am. Future Sys., Inc. v. Better Bus. Bureau 

of E. Pa., 923 A.2d 389, 401–05 (Pa. 2007).

Case: 14-4756 Document: 003112204155 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/10/2016
8

Slawecki acted with actual malice when writing the email. Trivedi’s own affidavit 

stating the allegations of sexual abuse were “absolutely false” is the only evidence 

Trivedi offered as proof that the statement was false. (App. 514.) “[C]onclusory, selfserving affidavits,” such as this, however, “are insufficient to withstand a motion for 

summary judgment.” Kirleis v. Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., 560 F.3d 156, 161 

(3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Blair v. Scott Specialty Gases, 283 F.3d 595, 608 (3d Cir. 2002)). 

Notably, Slawecki’s email had identified a purported victim of sexual abuse, and Trivedi 

did not present any competent evidence that the sexual abuse with this alleged victim did 

not occur. Therefore, the District Court was correct in concluding that Trivedi’s 

conclusory affidavit alone falls short of clear and convincing evidence that Slawecki’s

statements were false. 

Even assuming the statements were false, Trivedi has not offered clear and 

convincing evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Slawecki acted 

with actual malice. Trivedi asserts that Slawecki exhibited reckless disregard as to the 

falsity of the statements because: (1) she should have had reason to believe Gloria 

Zamora was not reliable, but failed to verify Zamora’s statements; (2) she admitted that 

the statement was “gossip” in emails and deposition testimony; and (3) she sent 

subsequent emails in which she expressed regret over sending the July 28th email. 

None of these factors is persuasive. First, even if Slawecki had reason to doubt 

Zamora’s reliability, Slawecki had received substantially the same information 

independently from Dennis Lang, lending credibility to both sources. Moreover, a 

“[f]ailure to investigate does not in itself” establish reckless disregard for the truth. St. 

Case: 14-4756 Document: 003112204155 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/10/2016
9

Amant, 390 U.S. at 733. Second, despite Slawecki referring to the statement as “gossip,” 

it is clear from her emails and deposition testimony that she believed this information to 

be accurate and never “entertained serious doubts as to [its] truth.” Id. at 731. Finally, 

Slawecki expressed regret over sending the July 28th email because she had mentioned 

other individuals’ names and because the email had resulted in this lawsuit, not because 

she doubted the truthfulness of the statement. Because we agree that a reasonable jury 

could not conclude by clear and convincing evidence that the statements were both false 

and that Slawecki acted with actual malice, we will affirm the District Court’s grant of 

summary judgment on Count One of the First Amended Complaint. 

B.

To prevail on a claim for tortious interference with existing or prospective 

contractual relationships under Pennsylvania law, a party must prove: 

(1) the existence of a contractual or prospective contractual or 

economic relationship between the plaintiff and a third party; 

(2) purposeful action by the defendant, specifically intended 

to harm an existing relationship or intended to prevent a 

prospective relation from occurring; (3) the absence of 

privilege or justification on the part of the defendant; [and] 

(4) legal damage to the plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s 

conduct . . . .

Acumed LLC v. Advanced Surgical Servs., Inc., 561 F.3d 199, 212 (3d Cir. 2009); see 

also Blackwell v. Eskin, 916 A.2d 1123, 1127–28 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007). For prospective 

contracts, a party must additionally prove “a reasonable likelihood that the relationship 

would have occurred but for the defendant’s interference.” Acumed LLC, 561 F.3d at 

212; see Thompson Coal Co. v. Pike Coal Co., 412 A.2d 466, 471 (Pa. 1979).

Case: 14-4756 Document: 003112204155 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/10/2016
10

In response to Slawecki’s summary judgment motion on the interference with 

contractual relationship claims, Trivedi relies upon a three-page affidavit from Alice 

Branton, the CEO of Trivedi Global, Inc., in which she named twenty-three persons as 

having severed their relationship with Trivedi “due to Tania Slawecki’s allegations 

posted on the internet . . . and her allegation that he physically assaulted a girl and had 

pending criminal charges.” (App. 643–44.) Branton does not provide the basis for her 

knowledge as to the reason why each of the named persons left Trivedi. Nor does she 

provide competent evidence that Trivedi lost contracts as a result of Slawecki’s conduct. 

As the District Court explained:

Trivedi has offered no evidence of either existing or 

prospective contracts. There were no contractual documents 

provided to defeat summary judgment to show the existence 

of a contract with these named individuals. Nor was any

evidence adduced of a prospective contract, such as an offer 

or negotiation documents. No facts were presented to defeat 

the summary judgment motion; Plaintiffs merely set forth the 

unsupported opinion of [Branton] who stated that twenty-four 

people left the Trivedi enterprises because of Slawecki’s

statements, including one employee who apparently began 

litigation against Trivedi approximately three months before 

Slawecki wrote the “overview” internet post and the email at 

issue. In other words, Trivedi has responded with no facts that 

create a genuine issue for trial.

(App. 37.)

We concur with the District Court’s analysis. Trivedi has not produced any 

contractual documents regarding these twenty-three individuals or provided any evidence 

outside the affidavit to support the existence of a contract with them. Trivedi has offered 

no evidence as to their reasons for severing their relationship. Furthermore, Trivedi has

Case: 14-4756 Document: 003112204155 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/10/2016
11

not offered any evidence of prospective contracts by showing a reasonable likelihood that 

a contractual relationship would have occurred with any affiliate or employee. Branton’s 

“conclusory, self-serving affidavit[] [is] insufficient to withstand a motion for summary 

judgment.” Kirleis, 560 F.3d at 161 (internal quotation marks omitted). “At summary 

judgment, a plaintiff cannot rely on unsupported allegations, but must go beyond 

pleadings and provide some evidence that would show that there exists a genuine issue 

for trial.” Jones v. United Parcel Serv., 214 F.3d 402, 407 (3d Cir. 2000). Because we 

agree that Trivedi has not come forward with any evidence to support his claims of 

interference with existing or prospective contractual relationships, we will affirm the 

District Court’s grant of summary judgment on Counts Two and Three of the First 

Amended Complaint.

IV.

For the forgoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment of 

December 3, 2014.

Case: 14-4756 Document: 003112204155 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/10/2016