Jane Doe 1 et al vs Natural Remedies Massage LLC et al

On February 29, 2024, the Ohio jury returned a $10,016,600 verdict in favor of Plaintiffs Jane Does 1 through 10. The present sexual assault lawsuit arose from the acts committed by a masseuse on the women clients who had come to Natural Remedies Massage Parlour.

Case Background

On June 11. 2021, Jane Does 1 through 3 pseudonymously filed a sexual assault complaint through their attorneys before the Ohio, Fairfield County, Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster. Judge Richard E. Berens presided over this case. [Case number: 2021 CV 00260]

Cause

Between July 2019 and March 2021, Jane Does 1 through 10, reportedly endured sexual assaults while receiving massages by Matthew Schaitel at Natural Remedies Massage in Lancaster. Separate legal actions were initiated by Jane Does 1-3 and Jane Does 4-10 against Schaitel, spa owner Hollie Aneshansley, and Broad St Property LLC, the building’s proprietor. Aneshansley and her spouse possessed both the spa and the property. The lawsuits alleged Schaitel assaulted Plaintiffs during massages, holding the other Defendants accountable for his actions. Specific claims pointed out that Aneshansley and the spa had received complaints about Schaitel’s conduct during that period but failed to respond.

The Plaintiffs all testified that, during their massages, Schaitel pulled down the drapes that covered their bodies, allowing Schaitel to view and massage each Plaintiff’s buttocks. Certain Plaintiffs also testified that Schaitel reached under their drapes to massage the areas near their breasts. Several additionally claimed Schaitel caressed their breasts or rubbed his erect penis against their bodies. Allegations against Defendant Schaitel included charges of sexual battery, gross negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and invasion of privacy. On February 28, 2024. Defendants Natural Remedies Massage LLC, Hollie Aneshansley, and Broad St Property LLC were dismissed after a settlement was reached with all Plaintiffs.

Injury

The Plaintiffs suffered bodily injury, resulting in pain, mental anguish, and loss of capacity to enjoy life due to the Defendant’s actions. They also incurred expenses for medical treatment, loss of property, earnings, and the ability to earn money.

Damages

The Plaintiffs demanded a trial by jury of eight. They demanded punitive damages and a monetary judgment against each Defendant, jointly and severally, above $25,000 with interest, attorney fees, costs, and any other relief that the Court deemed fair and equitable.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

Claims

The Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant Schaitel had violated the standard of care and had sexually assaulted them, Due to the sexual assault, the Plaintiffs suffered great emotional and psychological distress. Many of them lost the capacity to earn and grow at their workplace. They claimed that the acts had been committed for the purpose of the Defendant’s own sexual gratification and that he had committed sexual battery against them.

Defense

Schaitel represented himself and claimed he did not intend to inappropriately touch the Plaintiffs. He asserted the allegations were misunderstandings. Additionally, he testified he had worked as a masseuse in other states where no clients had previously complained about his behavior.

Expert Testimony

The Plaintiffs’ psychology expert examined counterintuitive victim behaviors and detailed why most Plaintiffs froze during the massages. Additionally, the expert contextualized the shame and embarrassment commonly experienced by sexual assault victims. Testimony revealed that some plaintiffs developed fears and phobias after the alleged assaults, while others withdrew from their social circles.

Jury Verdict

On February 29, 2024, the Ohio jury returned a verdict against Defendant Matthew Schaitel. The jury found Schaitel guilty of sexually battering all ten Plaintiffs, intentionally causing them emotional distress, and invading their privacy. It was also determined he had shown gross negligence towards all ten Plaintiffs, although none were falsely imprisoned. In total, the jury awarded the Plaintiffs $10,016,600.

  • Jane Doe Ten – $ 1,003,000
    • $ 500,000 Punitive Exemplary Damages
    • $ 3,000 economic loss
    • $ 500,000 noneconomic loss
  • Jane Doe Nine – $ 1,000,300
    • $ 500,000 Punitive Exemplary Damages
    • $ 300 economic loss
    • $ 500,000 noneconomic loss
  • Jane Doe Eight – $ 1,000,600
    • $ 500,000 Punitive Exemplary Damages
    • $ 600 economic loss
    • $ 500,000 noneconomic loss
  • Jane Doe Seven – $ 1,000,000
    • $ 500,000 Punitive Exemplary Damages
    • $ 500,000 noneconomic loss
  •  Jane Doe Six – $ 1,001,000
    • $ 500,000 Punitive Exemplary Damages
    • $ 1,000 economic loss
    • $ 500,000 noneconomic loss
  • Jane Doe Five – $ 1,001,200
    • $ 500,000 Punitive Exemplary Damages
    • $ 1,200 economic loss
    • $ 500,000 noneconomic loss
  • Jane Doe Four – $ 1,000,300
    • $ 500,000 Punitive Exemplary Damages
    • $ 300 economic loss
    • $ 500,000 noneconomic loss
  • Jane Doe Three – $ 1,007,500
    • $ 500,000 Punitive Exemplary Damages
    • $ 7,500 economic loss
    • $ 500,000 noneconomic loss
  •  Jane Doe Two – $ 1,001,200
    • $ 500,000 Punitive Exemplary Damages
    • $ 1,200 economic loss
    • $ 500,000 noneconomic loss
  • Jane Doe One – $ 1,001,500
    • $ 500,000 Punitive Exemplary Damages
    • $ 1,500 economic loss
    • $ 500,000 noneconomic loss

Court Documents:

Complaint

Answer

Verdict and Judgment