Ursuline coaches respond, file motion to strike ‘irrelevant’ and ‘defamatory’ statements

Chelsea Simeon

Mon, December 8, 2025 at 3:08 PM UTC

3 min read

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio (WKBN) — Ursuline High School coaches who were named in a federal lawsuit that alleged hazing took place within the football program have responded. They filed a motion to strike parts of the complaint they say are “immaterial and scandalous,” claiming they were only mentioned to elicit sympathy from the public.

Daniel Reardon, Timothy McGlynn and Christian Syrianoudis filed their response Friday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Related stories:

They denied most of the allegations in the lawsuit, which alleged that those in charge of the football program and the school ignored complaints of hazing and abuse.

The original lawsuit against Ursuline was filed in September by a mother and her children under the pseudonym “Doe” against administrators, coaches and some members of the high school football team and their parents, alleging hazing and sexual abuse stemming from a summer football team trip in June.

An expanded complaint that later added additional plaintiffs, John and Jill Roe and their son, and claimed Roe was subject to hazing and threats during a 2024 football camp trip, a year before the alleged assaults detailed in the “Doe” family’s initial filing.

The coaches denied knowledge of any hazing at that time and any alleged criminal acts mentioned in the lawsuit. They argued that they acted reasonably and without malice, and that the plaintiffs assumed risk by signing permission slips and releases for the trips.

Among their legal arguments are that the plaintiffs’ actions contributed to any harm, that coaches were not legally required to report the alleged misconduct under certain state laws, and that they lacked the knowledge required for certain criminal liability.

They add that McGlynn was not on the 2024 trip and should be dismissed from any claims in reference to that trip.

Their response referenced videos provided by the plaintiffs but said they were unable to verify the authenticity of the videos or the chain of command in producing them.

They want to dismiss the complaint with prejudice and recover any legal costs and attorneys’ fees.

The coaches also filed a motion to strike paragraphs of the plaintiffs’ 290-page amended complaint, which they argue is full of irrelevant and defaming content, only mentioned in an attempt to “publicly harass and defame the defendants, gather sympathy of a potential jury pool and inflame public opinion.”

“Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint includes biblical phrases, parenthetical opinions and comments, and other immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous paragraphs,” they wrote.

They say plaintiffs failed to state claims in numerous instances and would like the court to strike incidents unrelated to the trips at issue, mentioning recruiting violations not connected to the claims, as well as character attacks on the coaches and Ursuline. The motion to strike also references inflammatory comments and opinions, as well as social media posts.

Attorneys for one of the football players named in the lawsuit and his mother also filed their response Friday, denying most of the allegations in the expanded lawsuit or reporting a lack of information to confirm or deny them.

In their response, the defendants denied involvement in hazing or criminal acts, specifically that the player recorded or shared videos of the alleged hazing. The defendants admitted that a video was posted to the team’s group Snapchat, but said the player did not record it or transfer the video.

They also argued that many of the allegations in the lawsuit should be removed, calling them immaterial, scandalous and inflammatory. They argued that the complaint does not state a valid legal claim against them, and some of the claims are barred by “unclean hands,” meaning that the plaintiffs acted improperly themselves.

They are demanding a trial by jury.

Their responses were filed after the plaintiffs reached a confidential settlement with another player and filed a motion for default judgment against 17 other defendants, stating that they failed to plead or respond within the set timeframe.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to WKBN.com.

About Our Ads

Source