Gruber Complaint

1/12/2023 4:06 PM
23CV01747
6 CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
7 COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH
8 ANDRAS GRUBER, Case No.
9 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT
10 v. (Defamation Per Se;

Defamation; False Light)
11
Amount of Claim: $1,000,000
12 OREGON HEALTH AND Fee Authority: ORS 21.160(1)(c)
SCIENCE UNIVERSITY, Filing Fee $884
13 OWEN MCCARTY, and
DAVID JACOBY, NOT SUBJECT TO
14 MANDATORY ARBITRATION
15
Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff, Andras Gruber (“Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys, Nesenoff &
18 Miltenberg LLP, and Karmel Savage PC, respectfully alleges as follows, based upon his own
19 knowledge as to his own acts and upon information and belief as to all other matters:
20 THE NATURE OF THE ACTION
21 1. This action is brought by Plaintiff, a doctor and former professor at Oregon Health
22 and Science University (“OHSU” or the “University”), to recover, inter alia, damages caused by
23 Defendants’ defamatory communications of knowingly false statements. The entirely false
24
PAGE 1 – COMPLAINT - (DEFAMATION PER SE; FALSE LIGHT; INTENTIONAL Karmel Savage, P.C.
1023 SW Yamhill Street, Suite #200
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; NEGLIGENCE)
Portland OR 97205
Phone: (503) 295-2486 / Fax: (503) 295-0126
1 allegations, communicated to third parties through electronic submission, contained false
2 statements alleging criminal sexual conduct on the part of Plaintiff.
3 2. Defendants’ inflammatory false statements were intentionally misleading, as well
4 as damning to Plaintiff’s reputation and good name, making it appear that Plaintiff was subject to
5 a criminal conviction. Defendants’ communications were spread to the general public, including
6 Plaintiff’s colleagues and friends, harming Plaintiff’s professional standing in the medical
7 community.
8 3. On information and belief, Defendants used Plaintiff as a scapegoat in an attempt
9 to remedy OHSU’s long-standing failure to address sexual assault complaints in the past. Indeed,
10 the statements were made while OHSU was already under investigation for failing to take adequate
11 action to remedy complaints of sexual misconduct in other cases.
12 4. Defendants attempted to justify its rushed and flawed process by publishing a
13 statement to the campus community that Plaintiff was responsible for sexual misconduct, and that
14 the University’s findings were confirmed by a criminal investigation.
15 5. However, the University’s statement was patently false. Not only was there no
16 conclusion and no finding in the criminal case when this statement was made, but the criminal
17 charges have been subsequently dropped since the criminal investigation was concluded.
18 6. The University knew, or should have known, that there had been no criminal
19 findings when the statements were made.
20 7. Defendants’ defamatory statements painted Plaintiff as a criminal sex offender,
21 forever marring his professional and personal life.
22 8. Defendants’ actions were malicious in nature, taken to deliberately damage
23 Plaintiff’s reputation and career.
24
Portland OR 97205
Phone: (503) 295-2486 / Fax: (503) 295-0126
1 9. As a result of Defendants’ defamatory behavior, Plaintiff has been subject to
2 widespread humiliation, social stigma, professional backlash, and occupational losses.
3 10. In light of Defendants’ campaign of public humiliation and stoking outrage against
4 Plaintiff, Plaintiff seeks judicial intervention to preserve and reinstate his previously unblemished
5 professional and personal reputation.
6 PARTIES
7 11. Plaintiff Andras Gruber is a natural person and resided in the state of Oregon at all
8 relevant times herein. Plaintiff is a private citizen who is neither a politician nor a celebrity.
9 12. Defendant OHSU is a public educational institution located in Portland, Oregon,
10 where it maintains its principal place of business.
11 13. Defendant Owen McCarty (“Defendant McCarty”) is a natural person. Upon
12 information and belief, Defendant McCarty was a resident of the state of Oregon at all relevant
13 times herein.
14 14. Defendant David Jacoby (“Defendant Jacoby”) is a natural person. Upon
15 information and belief, Defendant Jacoby was a resident of the state of Oregon at all relevant times
16 herein.
17 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18 15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to ORCP 4 because
19 Defendants resided in the state of Oregon at all relevant times, and a substantial part of the events
20 or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the County of Multnomah.
21 16. Venue is proper under ORS 14.060 because a substantial part of the events or
22 omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the County of Multnomah.
23 FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
24
Portland OR 97205
Phone: (503) 295-2486 / Fax: (503) 295-0126
1 a. OHSU Faces Criticism for Failing to Adequately Address Claims of Sexual Misconduct
Allegedly Committed by Male Students and/or Faculty
2
17. In the months leading up to the defamatory statements made involving Plaintiff,
3
OHSU students, as well as the public at large, openly accused the University of not taking its
4
allegations of sexual misconduct seriously, and failing to adequately punish perpetrators of sexual
5
assault on campus.
6
18. Indeed, OHSU came under fire for failing to aggressively pursue claims of sexual
7
misconduct immediately preceding the allegations against Plaintiff.
8
19. In 2021, the University’s actions, or lack thereof, drew national media scrutiny,
9
when a social worker sued OHSU, claiming that the University failed to take action on her
10
complaint of sexual assault against an OHSU anesthesiology resident, and instead attempted to
11
sweep the allegations under the rug. See OHSU announces $585,000 settlement of suit that alleged
12
sexual harassment by TikTok Doc, Oregon Live (May 11, 2021), available at
13
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2021/04/ohsu-announces-585000-settlement-of-suit-that-
14
alleged-sexual-harassment-by-tiktok-doc.html.
15
20. OHSU settled with the complainant for $585,000, and issued a public apology
16
which stated, amongst other things, “OHSU recognizes the need to address systemic structures
17
that allow inappropriate and damaging behavior to exist, and is committed to creating a safe and
18
inclusive environment that is free of harassment and discrimination.” Id. (emphasis added).
19
21. The University then hired the law firm of former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder
20
to perform a six-month independent investigation of OHSU’s handling of sexual misconduct
21
complaints. Id.
22
22. The University again caused public outrage when Holder’s outrageously high
23
hourly fee, which exceeded $2,000 per hour, was revealed. The University’s flagrant spending
24
Portland OR 97205
Phone: (503) 295-2486 / Fax: (503) 295-0126
1 prompted Oregon lawmakers to propose a new bill which states that “the cost of any private
2 counsel employed by a state agency cannot exceed the greater of 200% of the standard hourly rate
3 charged by the attorney general for the same services or a rate established by the attorney general
4 for the specific purpose.” See Former AG Eric Holder’s $2,295 an hour rate for OHSU
5 investigation drawing outrage. Oregon Live (Apr. 21, 2021), available at
6 https://www.oregonlive.com/education/2021/04/former-ag-eric-holders-2295-an-hour-rate-for-
7 ohsu-investigation-drawing-outrage.html.
8 23. Notably, OHSU’s contract with Holder stated that Holder’s firm would “design a
9 survivor-centered, trauma-informed investigative workplan based on our professional judgment
10 and provide to the University our independent findings and recommendations once we have
11 reached them.” See OHSU to pay more than $2,000 per hour to investigators of sexual
12 harassment, discrimination claims, OPB (Apr. 17, 2021), available at
13 https://www.opb.org/article/2021/04/17/oregon-health-science-university-sexual-harassment-
14 discrimination-claims/.
15 24. The report was completed in December of 2021, and determined that OHSU had
16 issued with the implementation of its complaint investigation procedures. The report called on
17 OHSU to make misconduct policies clearer and strengthen accountability measures. See OHSU
18 releases law firm's investigation into misconduct policies, workplace culture, KGW8 (Dec. 9,
19 2021), available at https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/ohsu-misconduct-law-firm-
20 investigation-report/283-dedd3e80-a287-4575-91f1-29437181750a.
21 25. In response to the report, OHSU’s president, Danny Jacobs, stated that “none of the
22 themes surprised [him]” and promised “lasting changes” in OHSU’s response to complaints of
23 sexual misconduct. Id.
24
Portland OR 97205
Phone: (503) 295-2486 / Fax: (503) 295-0126
1 26. On information and belief, following the media chastisement that OHSU received
2 in 2021, OHSU sought to prove: (1) that OHSU would aggressively pursue complaints of sexual
3 misconduct; and (2) that the money spent on Holder’s firm for the investigation and report was not
4 spent in vain. Unfortunately for Plaintiff, he would become the scapegoat that the University used
5 to prove these points.
6 27. On information and belief, the past media coverage, and the internal investigation,
7 which was still ongoing when allegations of sexual misconduct were brought against Plaintiff,
8 prompted OHSU to spread defamatory statements regarding Plaintiff in order to make up for its
9 past wrongs, and to paint the picture that the allegations against Plaintiff were being pursued
10 aggressively.
11 b. Plaintiff’s Background
12 28. Plaintiff is a successful doctor who worked as a professor of biomedical
13 engineering at OHSU.
14 29. Plaintiff began working at OHSU in 2004, and maintained a spotless disciplinary
15 record up until 2021. Plaintiff had never been found responsible for any form of misconduct prior
16 to the events that give rise to this action.
17 30. In addition to working at OHSU, Plaintiff also founded a company, Aronora, which
18 develops medicines for blood diseases with significant unmet medical need.
19 31. Plaintiff and his employees conduct research at Aronora in order to develop such
20 medicines, and the research is largely funded by the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”).
21 c. Plaintiff and Koski’s Interaction
22 32. In early September 2021, Plaintiff received a phone call from Amy Koski
23 (“Koski”), a laboratory coordinator in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at OHSU.
24
Portland OR 97205
Phone: (503) 295-2486 / Fax: (503) 295-0126
1 33. Plaintiff and Koski did not work together directly at OHSU and did not have an
2 ongoing working relationship. Indeed, Plaintiff and Koski had only exchanged a few cordial words
3 on occasion.
4 34. It was common for members of OHSU to go to lunch together, and on one occasion,
5 Koski and Plaintiff went to lunch together. Plaintiff and Koski only exchanged a few friendly
6 words, and there was never any other interaction between the two.
7 35. On the phone call, Koski blindsided Plaintiff, accusing Plaintiff of making sexually
8 explicit statements to her during a lunch outing nearly three years prior, on May 3, 2018. Koski
9 further accused Plaintiff of touching Koski’s genital area in the elevator when they got back from
10 lunch.
11 36. Plaintiff was completely shocked and dismayed by Koski’s phone call, and told
12 Koski that he did not recall any of the events that she alleged.
13 37. Indeed, credit card records indicated that Plaintiff did not even attend lunch with
14 Koski on the day that she alleged, but rather, on information and belief, Plaintiff went lunch with
15 his son near his home.
16 38. Plaintiff never said sexually explicit statements to Koski, nor did he ever touch her
17 in any way.
18 39. Plaintiff did not receive any further contact about Koski’s allegations for weeks.
19 40. On September 20, 2021, when Plaintiff was out of the country, Plaintiff received
20 an email from OHSU that stated that he had been placed on paid administrative leave. Plaintiff
21 was told not to enter his office or the premises of OHSU, thereby rendering it impossible for
22 Plaintiff to conduct research.
23
24
Portland OR 97205
Phone: (503) 295-2486 / Fax: (503) 295-0126
1 41. The email further noted that OHSU’s police department was conducting an
2 investigation of Koski’s allegations. The email made no mention of a OHSU Human Resources
3 investigation into the allegations.
4 42. On September 22, 2021, Plaintiff received a phone call from OHSU’s police
5 department asking to interview Plaintiff. OHSU’s police department indicated that it was
6 conducting a criminal investigation into the allegations, separate from the HR process.
7 43. On September 28, 2021, Plaintiff received an email from Alice Cuprill-Comas
8 (“Cuprill-Comas”), OHSU’s general counsel, stating that the OHSU police department submitted
9 its finding of probable cause for the investigation to OHSU. Notably, this was not a finding of
10 guilt, but merely probable cause to conduct the investigation.
11 44. The email further stated, even before any formal findings had been made, that
12 Plaintiff had violated OHSU’s policies by allegedly making sexually explicit statements to Koski,
13 and that an external investigator was to investigate the claims.
14 45. Additionally, the email stated that formal termination processes had been initiated.
15 In other words, Plaintiff was essentially told that he was going to be fired, even before any formal
16 findings had been made.
17 46. On information and belief, OHSU presumed Plaintiff guilty from the outset of the
18 investigation, as indicated in the email.
19 47. The email stated that Plaintiff had the right to a hearing, however, given the pending
20 criminal investigation, it was impossible for Plaintiff to participate in OHSU’s process without
21 impairing his Fifth Amendment Rights.
22 48. However, even though it would have been extremely prejudicial for Plaintiff to
23 participate and defend himself in the University investigation given the parallel criminal
24 investigation, the University refused to stay the proceedings until the outcome of the criminal
Portland OR 97205
Phone: (503) 295-2486 / Fax: (503) 295-0126
1 investigation. Instead, the University proceeded ahead with its investigation, absent input from
2 Plaintiff, in an attempt to paint Plaintiff as responsible.
3 49. Curprill-Comas’ email essentially found Plaintiff responsible before any
4 investigation had even taken place, and made it impossible for Plaintiff to continue his work at
5 OHSU.
6 50. At that point, Plaintiff’s entire body of scientific work had been erased from the
7 OHSU website, effectively removing Plaintiff from his position before any formal findings had
8 been made.
9 51. Plaintiff then communicated to the employees of his company, Aronora, that he had
10 been accused of sexual assault by Koski, because Plaintiff knew that any public dissemination of
11 information about the allegations would cause severe consequences to Aronora and his employees.
12 Indeed, NIH could limit or terminate grant funding to Aronora altogether, as most of Aronora’s
13 research is funded by NIH.
14 52. Plaintiff, having been removed from his position at OHSU, also provided
15 fundamental concepts and research directions to Defendant McCarty, who was the chair of the
16 biomedical engineering department, and was working with the team that was essential for a lot of
17 the funding to both OHSU and Aronora research.
18 53. Accordingly, on information and belief, Defendant McCarty knew how devastating
19 public disclosure of the allegations would be to Plaintiff’s professional career and company.
20 54. On November 8, 2021, the OHSU police department filed the police report in
21 Plaintiff’s matter to the Mulnomah County District Attorney’s Office.
22 55. The police report was almost entirely based off of interviews with individuals that
23 Koski provided as witnesses, and accused Plaintiff of Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree and
24 Harassment – Disorderly Conduct.
Portland OR 97205
Phone: (503) 295-2486 / Fax: (503) 295-0126
1 56. Plaintiff was arraigned on December 7, 2021 for Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree.
2 Plaintiff was not formally charged with Harassment.
3 57. Shortly after, OHSU investigator, Jill Goldsmith, issued her first draft of the
4 investigation report.
5 58. Goldsmith’s report relied almost entirely on the statements of Koski and her
6 witnesses, along with the one-sided police report, taking these claims at face value and ignoring
7 any credibility issues. On information and belief, Goldsmith did not seek out exculpatory
8 information, and instead only cherry-picked evidence and statements that would corroborate
9 Koski’s claims.
10 59. Indeed, Goldsmith solely relied upon witnesses to whom Koski allegedly reported
11 the encounter after the fact, and who merely recited Koski’s fabricated story.
12 60. Worse, the investigation report included new unfounded accusations of sexually
13 explicit statements allegedly made by Plaintiff, which Plaintiff had not been made aware of and
14 therefore had no opportunity to defend.
15 61. Relying on Koski’s statements, Goldsmith concluded and reported to the OHSU
16 legal team that Plaintiff was responsible for sexual harassment and sexual assault.
17 62. Plaintiff was then given the option to proceed to an OHSU hearing, however, given
18 the concurrent criminal investigation, Plaintiff still could not make any statements without
19 impacting the criminal investigation.
20 63. Given the biased investigation report and the termination process which had been
21 started by OHSU in September by placing Plaintiff on administrative leave and removing Plaintiff
22 from the OHSU website, Plaintiff made the decision to resign from his position at OHSU.
23 64. On information and belief, even after Plaintiff resigned from his position, OHSU
24 and its administration continued to attempt to inflict as much damage to Plaintiff’s image and his
PAGE 10 – COMPLAINT - (DEFAMATION PER SE; FALSE LIGHT; Karmel Savage, P.C.
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; NEGLIGENCE)
Portland OR 97205
Phone: (503) 295-2486 / Fax: (503) 295-0126
1 company as possible, in an effort to please Koski and remedy its past failure to address complaints
2 of sexual misconduct.
3 65. Indeed, Plaintiff’s attorney at the time requested that OHSU issue a statement
4 stating that Plaintiff left OHSU to pursue new directions in his career. However, OHSU never
5 responded.
6 66. The University allowed Plaintiff to go to his office to retrieve his belongings, but
7 only under police escort, which was both humiliating for Plaintiff and damning to his reputation.
8 Significantly, at this time, there had still been no formal findings either in the criminal investigation
9 or the OHSU investigation, and thus, the University presumed Plaintiff responsible from the start.
10 67. When Plaintiff did retrieve his computer, he was locked out of his OHSU account,
11 and OHSU had encrypted the files on Plaintiff’s computer so that Plaintiff could not even make
12 copies of his own research. Many of the files contained information that could be valued only by
13 further investment and research into the matters, some of which had significant potential value.
14 68. Plaintiff subsequently gave his computer back to the OHSU police department for
15 purposes of the criminal investigation. Although Plaintiff has an external drive of his files, he is
16 unable to read any of the files as the entire drive is encrypted.
17 69. The loss of these files was devastating to Plaintiff, as his company is based entirely
18 on Plaintiff’s research and ideas. Most of Plaintiff’s innovative concepts pre-dated his employment
19 at OHSU, however, Plaintiff stored his work on his OHSU devices.
20 70. Plaintiff’s files included emails, many of them professional and critical for his
21 work, old documents, financial and personal data, family data and documents, photocopies,
22 diplomas, all of his work of about 40 years at various institutions, contracts, confidential material,
23 government documents, including United States and foreign patents and patent applications, new
24 scientific concepts, letters, company information and files, and more.
Portland OR 97205
Phone: (503) 295-2486 / Fax: (503) 295-0126
1 71. By refusing access or the ability to copy these files, OHSU essentially deprived
2 Plaintiff of everything he had created in his career, before he had ever even been found formally
3 responsible.
4 72. In addition, by locking Plaintiff out of his computer, OHSU was also functionally
5 encumbering Plaintiff’s ability to defend himself from the allegations by forcing him to access
6 information through a costly and time-consuming subpoena process.
7 d. OHSU’s Defamatory Statements
8 73. On January 12, 2022, Defendant McCarty sent an email “on behalf of” Defendant
9 Jacoby, to every individual in the biomedical engineering department, except Plaintiff. On
10 information and belief, this also included alumni of the biomedical engineering department that
11 were no longer at OHSU. The email stated:
12 Dear Department of Biomedical Engineering Members,
13 I am emailing to update you on the departure of Andras Gruber, M.D., professor of

biomedical engineering, who joined OHSU in 2004.
14
OHSU placed Dr. Gruber on administrative leave and initiated formal termination
15 proceedings on Sept. 28, 2021 relating to allegations that Dr. Gruber violated OHSU Policy
No. 03-05-035—Sexual Harassment and the OHSU Code of Conduct by sexually
16 assaulting an OHSU employee. A criminal and internal investigation substantiated the
underlying factual allegations. Dr. Gruber opted not to pursue his right to a hearing
17 pursuant to OHSU Policy No. 03-70-005 and was separated from employment effective
Dec. 13, 2021. The remaining criminal allegations were referred to the Multnomah County
18 District Attorney. The University has notified the National Institute of Health (NIH),
including public and private partners through which Dr. Gruber received NIH funding, of
19 these facts.
20 OHSU, I personally, and your chair, Dr. McCarty, deeply regret the trauma this incident
has caused. We are focused on supporting the survivor's individual safety, healing and well-
21 being.
22 I realize that bringing a complaint of sexual assault or sexual harassment is emotionally

difficult, but note the importance of bringing complaints to light so that they can be
23 investigated and so those that do not meet our standards of conduct are properly held
accountable.
24
Portland OR 97205
Phone: (503) 295-2486 / Fax: (503) 295-0126
1 … (emphasis added).
2 74. When Defendant McCarty made the statement above on behalf of Defendant
3 Jacoby and OHSU, Defendants did so with actual malice, i.e. with actual knowledge of the falsity
4 of the statements or reckless disregard for the statements’ falsity.
5 75. When Defendant McCarty made the statement above on behalf of Defendant
6 Jacoby and OHSU, Defendants knew that the statements pertaining to Plaintiff were false.
7 76. When Defendants published the statement above, Defendants acted in a grossly
8 irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards for information gathering and
9 dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties.
10 77. Specifically, Defendants knew that the criminal investigation was ongoing at the
11 time that the statements pertaining to Plaintiff were made, and that there were no criminal findings
12 which “substantiated” the allegations of sexual assault made against Plaintiff.
13 78. Indeed, at the time the statements were made, the criminal investigation was in the
14 open discovery phase following arraignment, and Plaintiff had not been tried nor convicted.
15 79. Thus, the statements made by Defendants were patently false, and in direct
16 contradiction with the due process rights afforded to Plaintiff as a criminal defendant.
17 80. On information and belief, Defendants’ defamatory statements, claiming that the
18 criminal investigation had substantiated findings of sexual assault, were intended to destroy
19 Plaintiff’s professional reputation and to prove to the public that OHSU was committed to
20 aggressively pursuing allegations of sexual assault following recent media scandals.
21 81. On information and belief, OHSU also spread this information to individuals and
22 organizations, including NIH, via phone calls and other electronic communications.
23 82. In other words, on information and belief, OHSU used Plaintiff as a scapegoat to
24 prove its commitment to Title IX in an attempt to clean up its public image.
Portland OR 97205
Phone: (503) 295-2486 / Fax: (503) 295-0126
1 83. Moreover, on information and belief, information regarding the allegations against
2 Plaintiff and the actions taken by OHSU was given to the firm that conducted the internal
3 investigation of OHSU.
4 e. The Criminal Charges Are Dropped, Proving Defendants’ Statements False
5 84. Throughout the remainder of 2022, during the criminal discovery phase, Plaintiff
6 and his defense team obtained numerous documents and emails which contained false and
7 conflicting statements made by Koski, and which disproved her allegations in their entirety.
8 85. Indeed, on information and belief, discovery revealed and substantiated that
9 evidence provided by Koski and used by both OHSU and the State to establish the criminal charges
10 against Plaintiff was fabricated.
11 86. Specifically, information revealed that Plaintiff was not in attendance at the May
12 2018 lunch where Koski alleged Plaintiff sexually abused her.
13 87. On January 3, 2023, after presenting the District Attorney’s Office with this
14 information, the charges against Plaintiff were formally dropped.
15 88. Therefore, the statements made by OHSU were patently false, as the criminal
16 investigation did not, and never did, support any findings of sexual misconduct.
17 f. Harm to Plaintiff
18 89. As a result of Defendants’ defamatory statements as set forth above, Plaintiff has
19 suffered widespread humiliation, mental and emotional anguish, and social stigma.
20 90. As a result of Defendants’ defamatory statements aw set forth above, Plaintiff’s
21 reputation of over 40 years was severely and irreparably harmed.
22 91. As a result of Defendants’ defamatory statements as set forth above, Plaintiff has
23 suffered symptoms of anxiety and depression, including loss of motivation, loss of sleep, as well
24 as emotional and psychological distress.
Portland OR 97205
Phone: (503) 295-2486 / Fax: (503) 295-0126
1 92. Additionally, as a result of Defendants’ defamatory statements as set forth above,
2 Plaintiff’s family has also suffered from ridicule and resulting symptoms of anxiety and
3 depression, as well as emotional and psychological distress.
4 93. Defendants’ defamatory statements about Plaintiff have since been disseminated to
5 such an extent that Plaintiff has suffered financial and professional harm and damages, losing
6 partners, contracts, and other business opportunities, including inter alia:
7 a. Plaintiff was working towards becoming Professor Emeritus at OHSU, however,

due to OHSU’s defamatory statements, Plaintiff is now effectively cancelled
8 amongst the medical community;
9 b. Plaintiff will be unable to secure another full-time professorship at any notable

institution, due to OHSU’s defamatory statements, as he will have to disclose
10 OHSU’s letter;
11 c. Due to OHSU’s defamatory statements, in order to prevent any further harm to his
company, Plaintiff has had to step down from his position as President and CEO of
12 Aronora, and now is the Chief Medical Officer in order to remain in the background
so that funding from the company does not get rescinded;
13
d. Plaintiff has been unable to collaborate within the scientific community, which is
14 an essential part of success in Plaintiff’s field of research;
15 e. Only three of about forty former colleagues of Plaintiff have been willing to speak
to Plaintiff since the dissemination of this letter, which has blocked Plaintiff from
16 putting together effective and successful grants and clinical trial applications for
evaluating the safety and efficacy of product candidates that he invented while at
17 OHSU;
18 f. Plaintiff’s company had been in the midst of preparatory work for raising
approximately $50 million in equity funding for further clinical development, and
19 entered into a prospective deal. However, the prospective and promising deal has
fallen apart, on information and belief, due to OHSU’s dissemination of defamatory
20 statements.
21 g. Plaintiff’s company Aronora is 100% reliant on grants, and by disseminating the

defamatory letter to NIH, OHSU was functionally jeopardizing the company as
22 well. As a majority stakeholder in Aronora, Plaintiff is financially impacted by this.
23 94. As delineated above, Plaintiff has suffered irreparable damage to his reputation as
24 the direct and proximate result of Defendants’ defamatory statements.
Portland OR 97205
Phone: (503) 295-2486 / Fax: (503) 295-0126
1 AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Defamation Per Se; Libel Per Se)
2
95. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation hereinabove as if fully set
3
forth herein.
4
96. In January 2022, Defendants communicated allegations of sexual assault, predatory
5
behavior, and sexual misconduct, pertaining to Plaintiff. Defendants’ statements were published
6
on the internet and disseminated through email.
7
97. Defendants’ statements were false; Plaintiff never sexually assaulted or abused the
8
Complainant.
9
98. Moreover, a criminal investigation did not substantiate the allegations. Indeed, the
10
criminal charges against Plaintiff were dropped in their entirety.
11
99. Defendants’ statements were intended to, and did, expose Plaintiff to public
12
contempt, aversion, disgrace, induce an evil opinion in the minds of right-thinking persons and did
13
actually deprive Plaintiff of friendly and professional interaction in society.
14
100. When Defendants made the statements above, they did so with actual malice, i.e.
15
with actual knowledge of the falsity of the statements or reckless disregard for the statements’
16
falsity.
17
101. When Defendants made the statements above, they knew or should have known
18
that the statements pertaining to Plaintiff were false.
19
102. When Defendants made the statements above, they acted in a grossly irresponsible
20
manner without due consideration for the standards for information gathering and dissemination
21
ordinarily followed by responsible parties.
22
23
24
Portland OR 97205
Phone: (503) 295-2486 / Fax: (503) 295-0126
1 103. Defendants’ statements were not privileged, as the communication was not made
2 in the kind of circumstances in which an absolute protection applies or in which it was necessary
3 or appropriate to make those communications subject to a qualified privilege.
4 104. Defendants’ statements were defamatory per se in that the statements imputed a
5 serious crime to Plaintiff, i.e. sexual abuse and assault.
6 105. Defendants’ statements were defamatory per se in that the statements imputed
7 sexual immorality and/or sexual misconduct to Plaintiff, i.e. sexual assault and predatory behavior.
8 106. Defendants’ false statements achieved their desired effect of exposing Plaintiff to
9 contempt, aversion, and vitriol. Plaintiff’s reputation has been irreparably damaged as the result of
10 Defendants’ defamatory statements.
11 107. Plaintiff suffered emotional pain and suffering as the result of Defendants’
12 defamatory statements.
13 108. Plaintiff suffered financial and career damages as the result of Defendants’
15 109. Plaintiff is entitled to per se damages because the defamatory statements made by
16 Defendants were inherently harmful, in that they imputed sexual immorality and a serious criminal
17 act.
18 110. Plaintiff is further entitled to actual damages, compensatory damages, and punitive
19 damages for Defendants’ malicious, defamatory conduct, as Plaintiff has been damaged in an
20 amount to be determined at trial.
21 111. Defendants’ conduct was willful, wanton, and malicious such that punitive
22 damages should be awarded.
23 112. Defendants’ conduct was so gross as to constitute disinterested malevolence,
24 justifying an award of attorneys’ fees.
Portland OR 97205
Phone: (503) 295-2486 / Fax: (503) 295-0126
1 113. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendants in an
2 amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest; plus equitable relief in the form of an
3 injunction precluding Defendant from releasing defamatory information claiming that Plaintiff has
4 been convicted and/or found responsible for a sex crime, and ordering Defendant to issue a
5 clarification/correction to all individuals/institutions to which they provided false and misleading
6 information, and any further relief the court deems just and proper
7 AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Defamation)
8
9
forth herein.
10
115. In January 2022, Defendants communicated allegations of sexual assault, predatory
11
behavior, and sexual misconduct, pertaining to Plaintiff. Defendants’ statements were published
12
on the internet and disseminated through email.
13
116. Defendants’ statements were false; Plaintiff never sexually assaulted or abused the
14
Complainant.
15
117. Moreover, a criminal investigation did not substantiate the allegations. Indeed, the
16
criminal charges against Plaintiff were dropped in their entirety.
17
118. Defendants’ statements were intended to, and did, expose Plaintiff to public
18
contempt, aversion, disgrace, induce an evil opinion in the minds of right-thinking persons and did
19
actually deprive Plaintiff of friendly and professional interaction in society.
20
119. When Defendants made the statements above, they did so with actual malice, i.e.
21
with actual knowledge of the falsity of the statements or reckless disregard for the statements’
22
falsity.
23
24
Portland OR 97205
Phone: (503) 295-2486 / Fax: (503) 295-0126
1 120. When Defendants made the statements above, they knew or should have known
2 that the statements pertaining to Plaintiff were false.
3 121. When Defendants made the statements above, they acted in a grossly irresponsible
4 manner without due consideration for the standards for information gathering and dissemination
5 ordinarily followed by responsible parties.
6 122. Defendants’ statements were not privileged, as the communication was not made
7 in the kind of circumstances in which an absolute protection applies or in which it was necessary
8 or appropriate to make those communications subject to a qualified privilege.
9 123. Defendants’ false statements achieved their desired effect of exposing Plaintiff to
10 contempt, aversion, and vitriol. Plaintiff’s reputation has been irreparably damaged as the result of
11 Defendants’ defamatory statements.
12 124. Plaintiff suffered emotional pain and suffering as the result of Defendants’
14 125. Plaintiff suffered financial and career damages as the result of Defendants’
16 126. Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, compensatory damages, and punitive
17 damages for Defendants’ malicious, defamatory conduct, as Plaintiff has been damaged in an
18 amount to be determined at trial.
19 127. Defendants’ conduct was willful, wanton, and malicious such that punitive
20 damages should be awarded.
21 128. Defendants’ conduct was so gross as to constitute disinterested malevolence,
22 justifying an award of attorneys’ fees.
Portland OR 97205
Phone: (503) 295-2486 / Fax: (503) 295-0126
1 injunction precluding Defendant from releasing defamatory information claiming that Plaintiff has
2 been convicted and/or found responsible for a sex crime, and ordering Defendant to issue a
3 clarification/correction to all individuals/institutions to which they provided false and misleading
4 information, and any further relief the court deems just and proper
5 AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(False Light)
6
7
forth herein.
8
131. On or about January 12, 2022, Defendants, with actual knowledge of the falsity of
9
the statement, and/or with reckless disregard for the truth, published a false statement via email to
10
members of the OHSU bioengineering department alleging that a criminal investigation had found
11
Plaintiff guilty of sexual assault.
12
132. Defendants intentionally painting Plaintiff as guilty of a sex crime when no actual
13
criminal findings had been made was intended to, and did, cast Plaintiff in a false light as a sexual
14
aggressor.
15
133. Defendants’ actions, based upon the misleading statements in OHSU’s email, had
16
the clear capacity to give rise to a false public impression as to Plaintiff.
17
134. Defendants’ actions placed Plaintiff in a false light that would be highly offensive
18
to a reasonable person.
19
135. Defendants acted with malice, had knowledge of the falsity and/or misleading
20
nature of the statements, or, at minimum, acted with reckless disregard as to the falsity of the
21
statements and the light in which Plaintiff would be placed.
22
136. Defendants’ actions have directly and proximately caused damage to Plaintiff’s
23
reputation in the eyes of his colleagues, and the public at large.
24
Portland OR 97205
Phone: (503) 295-2486 / Fax: (503) 295-0126
1 137. Defendants’ actions have directly and proximately caused Plaintiff pecuniary harm,
2 including, but not limited to, loss of professional and business opportunities.
3 138. Defendants’ actions have directly and proximately caused Plaintiff emotional
4 suffering and mental anguish.
5 139. In addition to monetary relief, Plaintiff seeks equitable relief in the form of an
6 injunction precluding Defendant from further casting Plaintiff in a false light.
9 injunction precluding Defendant from releasing information claiming that Plaintiff has been
10 convicted and/or found responsible for a sex crime for the purpose of casting Plaintiff in a false
11 light, and ordering Defendant to issue a clarification/correction to all individuals/institutions to
12 which they provided false and misleading information, and any further relief the court deems just
13 and proper.
14 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
15 Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all claims.
16 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
17 WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants
18 as follows:
19 i. On the First Cause of Action against Defendants for defamation per se:
20 a. this Court’s finding that Defendants libeled and defamed Plaintiff

through the email they disseminated;
21
b. this Court’s finding that Defendants communicated the defamatory
22 statements with malice;
23 c. this Court’s finding that Defendants’ publication and dissemination of

the defamatory statements was grossly irresponsible and without due
24
Portland OR 97205
Phone: (503) 295-2486 / Fax: (503) 295-0126
1 consideration for the standards for information gathering and
dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties;
2
d. an injunction precluding further defamatory statements;
3
e. a judgment awarding the Plaintiff damages of $1,000,000, or in an
4 amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, attorney’s fees, expenses,
costs and disbursements.
5
ii. On the Second Cause of Action against Defendants for defamation:
6
a. this Court’s finding that Defendants libeled and defamed Plaintiff
7 through the email they disseminated;
8 b. this Court’s finding that Defendants communicated the defamatory

statements with malice;
9
c. this Court’s finding that Defendants’ publication and dissemination of
10 the defamatory statements was grossly irresponsible and without due
consideration for the standards for information gathering and
11 dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties;
12 d. an injunction precluding further defamatory statements;
13 e. a judgment awarding the Plaintiff damages of $1,000,000, or in an

amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, attorney’s fees, expenses,
14 costs and disbursements.
15 iii. On the third cause of action for false light, a judgment awarding Plaintiff damages
of $1,000,000, or in an amount to be determined at trial, including, without
16 limitation, damages to physical well-being, emotional and psychological damages,
damages to reputation, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs
17 and disbursements; and
18 iv. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
19 Dated this 12th day of January, 2023
20
By: /s/ Elizabeth C. Savage
21 Elizabeth C. Savage, OSB #141157
Karmel Savage, PC
22 1023 SW Yamhill Street, Suite #200
Portland, Oregon 97205
23 Tel: (503)295-2486
Attorney for Plaintiff
24
Portland OR 97205
Phone: (503) 295-2486 / Fax: (503) 295-0126
1
By: /s/ Andrew T. Miltenberg
2 Andrew T. Miltenberg, Esq.
Stuart Bernstein, Esq.
3 Kristen Mohr, Esq.
NESENOFF & MILTENBERG, LLP
4 363 Seventh Avenue, Fifth Floor
New York, New York 10001
5 Tel: (212) 736-4500
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Portland OR 97205
Phone: (503) 295-2486 / Fax: (503) 295-0126

Gruber Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gruber Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/12/2023 4:06 PM

6 CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

8 ANDRAS GRUBER, Case No.

10 v. (Defamation Per Se;

20 THE NATURE OF THE ACTION

23 Defendants’ defamatory communications of knowingly false statements. The entirely false

2 statements alleging criminal sexual conduct on the part of Plaintiff.

3 2. Defendants’ inflammatory false statements were intentionally misleading, as well

8 3. On information and belief, Defendants used Plaintiff as a scapegoat in an attempt

11 action to remedy complaints of sexual misconduct in other cases.

12 4. Defendants attempted to justify its rushed and flawed process by publishing a

14 the University’s findings were confirmed by a criminal investigation.

19 findings when the statements were made.

20 7. Defendants’ defamatory statements painted Plaintiff as a criminal sex offender,

21 forever marring his professional and personal life.

22 8. Defendants’ actions were malicious in nature, taken to deliberately damage

23 Plaintiff’s reputation and career.

2 widespread humiliation, social stigma, professional backlash, and occupational losses.

5 professional and personal reputation.

9 12. Defendant OHSU is a public educational institution located in Portland, Oregon,

10 where it maintains its principal place of business.

11 13. Defendant Owen McCarty (“Defendant McCarty”) is a natural person. Upon

14 14. Defendant David Jacoby (“Defendant Jacoby”) is a natural person. Upon

17 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

20 or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the County of Multnomah.

22 omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the County of Multnomah.

23 FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

5 investigation drawing outrage. Oregon Live (Apr. 21, 2021), available at

9 survivor-centered, trauma-informed investigative workplan based on our professional judgment

12 harassment, discrimination claims, OPB (Apr. 17, 2021), available at

19 2021), available at https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/ohsu-misconduct-law-firm-

23 sexual misconduct. Id.

5 to prove these points.

12 28. Plaintiff is a successful doctor who worked as a professor of biomedical

16 to the events that give rise to this action.

21 c. Plaintiff and Koski’s Interaction

23 (“Koski”), a laboratory coordinator in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at OHSU.

15 his son near his home.

22 Plaintiff to conduct research.

3 investigation into the allegations.

10 guilt, but merely probable cause to conduct the investigation.

13 and that an external investigator was to investigate the claims.

16 findings had been made.

18 investigation, as indicated in the email.

21 impairing his Fifth Amendment Rights.

2 Plaintiff, in an attempt to paint Plaintiff as responsible.

3 49. Curprill-Comas’ email essentially found Plaintiff responsible before any

13 research is funded by NIH.

17 the funding to both OHSU and Aronora research.

21 Plaintiff’s matter to the Mulnomah County District Attorney’s Office.

24 Harassment – Disorderly Conduct.

2 Plaintiff was not formally charged with Harassment.

14 therefore had no opportunity to defend.

19 impacting the criminal investigation.

16 unable to read any of the files as the entire drive is encrypted.

19 at OHSU, however, Plaintiff stored his work on his OHSU devices.

24 scientific concepts, letters, company information and files, and more.

6 information through a costly and time-consuming subpoena process.

7 d. OHSU’s Defamatory Statements

9 Jacoby, to every individual in the biomedical engineering department, except Plaintiff. On

11 were no longer at OHSU. The email stated:

12 Dear Department of Biomedical Engineering Members,

13 I am emailing to update you on the departure of Andras Gruber, M.D., professor of

22 I realize that bringing a complaint of sexual assault or sexual harassment is emotionally