Sun v. Xu

99 F.4th 1007

Xingjian SUN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gary Gang XU, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 23-1960

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Argued February 7, 2024

Decided April 25, 2024

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 2:19-cv-02242 — Eric I. Long, Magistrate Judge.

Erik Puknys, Attorney, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, Palo Alto, CA, Hira Javed, Deena Lanier, Attorneys, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

James A. Martinkus, Attorney, Erwin, Martinkus & Cole, Champaign, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before Wood, Lee, and Pryor, Circuit Judges.

Lee, Circuit Judge.

Appellants Xingjian Sun and Xing Zhao accused their professor, Appellee Gary Gang Xu, of sexually and emotionally abusing them while the two were students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). Sun and Zhao brought these allegations to UIUC administrators, and Sun later publicized them during an interview on a nationally televised morning news show. Meanwhile, Appellant Ao Wang, a professor at Wesleyan University, learned of these allegations and posted on an online message board that Xu had a history of sexually assaulting students, to which Xu responded by posting negative comments about Wang and by allegedly sending a letter to his employer.

Sun, Zhao, and Wang eventually sued Xu: Sun and Zhao claimed that Xu had sexually assaulted them and others, and Wang claimed that Xu had wrongfully retaliated against him for his internet posts. Relevant to this appeal, Xu counterclaimed, asserting a defamation claim against Sun and claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Sun, Zhao, and Wang. After a trial, a jury found in favor of Xu on all issues and awarded him damages against Sun and Wang. Now, on appeal, Sun and Wang argue that the district court erred in denying their motion for judgment as a matter of law as to Xu's intentional infliction of emotional distress counterclaims. Appellants also contend that the district court erred in denying their motion for a new trial, which they believe is necessary based on the court's decision to admit evidence that Sun had a relationship with another professor. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment in favor of Xu on his counterclaim against Wang. In all other respects, the judgment below is affirmed.

I. Background

While a graduate student at UIUC in 2013, Sun asked Xu, then a professor in the Department of East Asian Language and Culture, to advise her project on Chinese film. Over time, Sun alleges, she and Xu engaged in a sexual relationship, a claim Xu has repeatedly denied. According to Sun, the relationship turned violent and non-consensual. Indeed, Sun claims Xu violently raped her, publicly chased her in a car, and attempted to kill her. Sun told the police and UIUC administrators about the relationship, and the University launched multiple investigations into Xu's conduct. Sun would later write an email to UIUC recanting her allegations against Xu and admitting she had fabricated the stories.

Zhao was a graduate student at UIUC and assisted Xu with a book he was writing. Zhao alleged that Xu attempted to kiss and grab her at an art exhibit. Zhao reported these allegations, along with concerns about Xu's relationship with Sun, to UIUC. Xu denies he ever assaulted Zhao.

Wang is a professor at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut. Wang and Xu had only met once, but Wang saw social media posts accusing Xu of rape, sexual assault, and predatory behavior. On March 10, 2018, Wang wrote a post on douban.com, an online message board, stating that Xu had committed "numerous misdeeds." Wang claimed that Xu had "sexually assaulted students for nearly 20 years, and finally had to resign and work in another university." Wang also wrote,

The information I have is that Gang Xu had improper relationships with many students, so that the university did not schedule classes for him, hoping that he would leave by himself. Frankly speaking, such a notorious person should be excluded from the education sector. If he chooses to work in a university in the Chinese mainland, students who are not aware of his misdeeds may become victims. So I give a warning here.

According to Wang, his "core purpose" in making the post was to "[g]ive a warning to prevent people from becoming next victims [sic] and exclude the misbehaving persons like Gary Gang Xu from the education sector." To that end, Wang encouraged students to "inform each other" of Xu's misdeeds, if universities did not punish Xu appropriately. Mere hours after Wang posted on douban.com, Xu responded to Wang via email, denying the claims and threatening legal action. A week later, Wang republished his comments on a different message board, zhihu.com. These posts apparently received over one million views.

In 2019, Sun, Zhao, and Wang filed a ten-count complaint against Xu, claiming he had abused and raped multiple students, forced Sun and Zhao into unpaid labor, and improperly retaliated against Wang for publicizing the allegations. The suit garnered much media attention, and Sun appeared on CBS This Morning, a nationally broadcast morning news show, to publicize her allegations. In her interview, Sun claimed that Xu had tried to run her over with a car and had subjected her to physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, including numerous instances of rape. The broadcast also included an image of Sun with a blackened eye purportedly caused by Xu.

In his answer to the complaint, Xu denied all of the claims and brought counterclaims accusing Sun of defamation and Sun, Zhao, and Wang of intentional infliction of emotional distress. After discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court allowed several of Appellants' claims, as well as Xu's counterclaims, to proceed to trial.

The trial took three days, and the jury returned a verdict against Sun, Zhao, and Wang on their claims against Xu. As for Xu's counterclaims, the jury found in favor of Xu and awarded him $100,000 in compensatory damages against Sun and $700,000 in compensatory and punitive damages against Wang.

At the conclusion of trial, Appellants asked the court to enter judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) or, alternatively, for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. Relevant to this appeal, Wang and Sun argued that no reasonable jury could find their conduct met the standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Illinois law. Appellants also asserted that a new trial was warranted because the district court's decision to admit testimony regarding Sun's relationship with another professor was unduly prejudicial in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 412. The district court denied these motions, and Appellants now appeal.

II. Discussion

We review the district court's denial of judgment as a matter of law de novo, viewing all facts and making all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Van Stan v. Fancy Colours & Co., 125 F.3d 563, 567 (7th Cir. 1997). We review the district court's denial of a request for a new trial and the district court's decision to allow testimony under a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Young, 955 F.3d 608, 614 (7th Cir. 2020).

A. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

Appellants Sun and Wang argue that the trial record does not support the jury's verdict on Xu's intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. A court may enter judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) if a party has been "fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). As such, we reverse only if no reasonable juror could have found on the trial record that Xu established all the elements of the claim. See Van Stan, 125 F.3d at 567. In conducting this analysis, we view all evidence in the light most favorable to Xu, the non-moving party, and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. Mangren Rsch. & Dev. Corp. v. Nat'l Chem. Co., 87 F.3d 937, 941 (7th Cir. 1996).

To prevail on an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim under Illinois law, a claimant must prove three elements. Schweihs v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 412 Ill.Dec. 882, 77 N.E.3d 50, 63 (2016). First, the conduct in question was truly extreme and outrageous. Id. Second, the actor intended to inflict severe emotional distress or knew that there was at least a high probability that his conduct would have caused such distress. Id. Third, the conduct in fact caused severe emotional distress. Id.

The tort "does not extend to 'mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.' " McGrath v. Fahey, 126 Ill.2d 78, 127 Ill. Dec. 724, 533 N.E.2d 806, 809 (1988) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt. d (1965)). Liability is found only when "the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt. d (1965)).

1. Claim Against Wang

Wang contends that no reasonable jury could find on this record that his conduct was extreme and outrageous under Illinois law. We agree.

The Illinois Supreme Court has identified three non-exclusive factors that inform whether conduct is extreme and outrageous. McGrath, 127 Ill.Dec. 724, 533 N.E.2d at 809-10. First, the extreme and outrageous nature of the conduct may arise from defendant's "abuse of some position that gives him authority over the plaintiff or the power to affect the plaintiff's interests." Schweihs, 412 Ill.Dec. 882, 77...