UPDATE: DC Appeals Court Upholds Dumping Birther's Defamation Suit Against Esquire

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last week in Farah et al. v. Esquire Magazine (Case No. 12-7055) upheld a lower court decision granting summary judgment to Esquire Magazine in a defamation suit brought by the author and publisher of a book questioning the U.S. citizenship of President Barack Obama.

Writing for the appellate court, Judge Judith W. Rogers said a post by Esquire that offended publisher Joseph Farah and author Jerome Corsi was protected political satire. Reasonable readers of the defendant's Politics Blog would not take the article as factual, the court ruled.

"Satire," Judge Rogers wrote, "is effective as social commentary precisely because it is often grounded in truth." United States District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Rosemary Collyer last year dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit, finding they had failed to state a claim (see "TUOL" post 6/7/12).

The appellate court ruling did not reach the question of the viability of Esquire's anti-SLAPP defense.

Toronto Life Faces Libel Suit from Public University

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Media lawyers are watching with interest as Canada's third-largest university, York University, has served a libel notice on Toronto Life magazine and award-winning writer Katherine Laidlaw, the Toronto Star (thestar.com) reported last month.

Laidlaw's Fortress York article in Toronto Life's October issue allegedly portrays the public research university's campus as a "hunting ground" for sexual predators, according to the Star article. Although Laidlaw's piece cites the school's bolstering its security force and installing emergency telephones campus-wide in response to a series of sexual assaults, the article purportedly claims that York's female students remain fearful concerning campus security.

University President Mamdouh Shoukri blasted the Toronto Life article for presenting a distorted view of campus safety. York sent libel notices to the magazine and Laidlaw last month, a pre-requisite to filing a libel action. The Star article quotes media lawyers and academics who question whether a public institution, such as York, may be a plaintiff in a defamation suit, noting that government entities, such as municipalities, cannot be.

Over the past couple of years, two higher education institutions, Indiana-based Butler University, and Thomas Cooley Law School in Michigan (see "TUOL" posts 4/10/13 & 12/14/12) have sued for libel, but both are privately funded. Not that anyone has asked the occasionally academic staff of "TUOL," but unfettered communication and free thought are supposed to thrive in university settings, so  large public institutions going after journalists seems, at the very least, impolite for Canadians.

UPDATE: Second Re-Tweeter Pays Up in Lord McAlpine's U.K. Libel Case

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

British comic Alan Davies is the latest social mediaite to learn the cost of the dark side of retweeting; in this case, 15,000 pounds ($23,976), according to accounts in The Guardian and the iMediaEthics.org media watchdog Web site.

Davies's resolution with Lord McAlpine follows the settlement last month with retweeter Sally Bercow, the spouse of the U.K. House of Commons Speaker. As reported here (see "TUOL" post 11/26/12), the retired British pol Alistair McAlpine, 71, one-time Conservative Party treasurer and confidant of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, settled a libel suit for roughly a combined $500,000 with the BBC and ITV last November.

Steve Messham, who alleged he was molested as a child, purportedly identified his alleged abuser in a photo whom police incorrectly said was McAlpine. Messham later apologized for the misidentification, but the BBC Newsnight program reported an unnamed North Wales politician was accused of pedophilia and the Twittersphere soon was active with posts suggesting that McAlpine was the abuser.

Davies, whom The Guardian reported has more than 400,000 Twitter followers, last year queried who the "Tory paedophile" was and retweeted a response identifying McAlpine. He was sued for libel by McAlpine despite promptly apologizing on Twitter for his posts. Bercow's 56,000 Tweeter followers allegedly received a post from her asking: "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*." McAlpine reportedly donated the settlement from Davies to the Royal Chelsea Hospital, according to The Guardian article.

The U.K. does not have the protection that likely would be accorded retweeters in the U.S. by Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which states: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information contact provider."

Woman Files Libel Claim Against CJR, J-Prof. for Update of 46-Year-Old 'False' Newsweek Article

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A woman has filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging defamation and invasion of privacy claims against Columbia Journalism Review, a retired Newsweek editor and Columbia Graduate School of Journalism professor and a film documentarian based on a Nov./Dec. 2012, CJR article that updated a 46-year-old Newsweek article that she also claimed was defamatory.

In Margaret Won v. Columbia Journalism Review et al. (Case No. 1:13-cv-07723), the plaintiff claims in her complaint that Bruce Porter, 74, published a follow-up article entitled Lost and Found last year in CJR that portrayed her as a former drug user who slept on park benches and underwent an illegal abortion back in 1967. That year, Porter authored an article in Newsweek, Gentle Marcy: A Shattering Tale, that Won alleges defamed her by inaccurately portraying her as an underage runaway who abused drugs and engaged in casual sex that led to the abortion. In her complaint, Won contends she was 19, not a 17-year-old minor, when the original article was written, and she accused Porter of betraying a promise of confidentiality by revealing her first name and hometown in the Newsweek piece.

As reported by the Law360.com Lexis/Nexis co.-owned Web site and Courthouse News Service, Won alleges the CJR follow-up piece includes the full names of her deceased parents and first names of her siblings, along with a photograph of her and Porter outside her Michigan home to which she didn't consent.

Won's complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages against CJR, Porter and filmmaker Daniel Loewenthal. The defendants did not comment in either the Law360 or CNS accounts of the case.

Mass. Judge Won't Toss Internet Defamation Claim Against Florida Man

Keller Williams Realty (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In Taylor et al v. Taylor et al, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Peter B. Krupp allowed an Internet defamation suit brought by Massachusetts realtors against a Florida defendant to go forward, according to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

The plaintiffs, realtors for Keller Williams Realty, allege they were defamed by their Florida-based soon-to-be former daughter in law, who they claim made anti-Semitic posts and accused them of engaging in real estate scams and withholding commissions.

The Florida resident sought to dismiss the Massachusetts suit brought by the plaintiffs on the ground that the Bay State was an improper forum to hear the case, but Judge Krupp disagreed, the Lawyers Weekly article reported. Judge Krupp noted in a brief opinion that the plaintiffs were Mass. residents and that the offending statements were meant to cause harm in Mass. and were made by someone familiar with the plaintiffs' business in Mass.

What It Means to Lose a Libel Case

 (Photo credit: Al Jazeera English)

The ramifications of bringing an unsuccessful defamation suit hit home this week for Yasser Abbas as counsel for the media defendant are asking the court for more than $200,000, according to the blog of the Legal Times (Legaltimes.typepad.com).

Abbas is appealing the trial court's dismissal of his defamation claim against Foreign Policy magazine regarding a June 2012, article. Abbas is the son of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Meanwhile, Williams & Connolly wants $100,481 in attorneys' fees and counsel for the article's author, Jonathan Schanzer, is seeking $107, 174 for his successful defense, according to Legal Times.

Ill. Lawyer Not Nonplussed by Bad Google + Review; Sues for Defamation

 "NewsRadio 780 and 105.9FM" (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A disgruntled man who posted a negative review of the attorney and law firm that represented his former spouse in the couple's divorce proceedings is the target of a defamation suit by his ex's attorney, according to reports by the Naperville (Ill.) Patch Web site and WBBM newsradio.

Naperville attorney Paul Nordini and his firm are plaintiffs in the suit against Joseph LaBarre that seeks a $110,000 judgment and an injunction ordering LaBarre's allegedly offensive comments stricken from Google +.  The plaintiffs contend they were defamed by LaBarre's review that cites Nordini's alleged "underhanded and deceitful" manner and refers to Nordini's law firm as "ethically shaky" in its representation of LaBarre's former spouse.

Nordini did not respond to media inquiries regarding the suit, in which he claims LarBarre's harsh review is costing him and his firm $10,000 a month in lost potential business. False statements attacking the reputation of a professional, such as an attorney or doctor, are libelous per se, but Nordini faces an uphill battle. LaBarre's purported comments smack of opinion, which carries First Amendment protection against defamation claims, and Nordini will find little solace in this blog's posts that have reported in recent months on unsuccessful attempts by lawyers and dentists to respond to unflattering  Web site reviews by racing to court (See "TUOL" posts 9/3/13, 4/24/13, 2/11/13). From personal domestic relations practice experience, the staff of "TUOL" would add that disgruntled divorce party is an oxymoron.

No 'Air Jordan' to Help, 7th Cir. Slam Dunks Scottie Pippen's Libel Suit

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit this week upheld the trial court's dismissal of former Chicago Bulls great Scottie Pippen's defamation suit against several broadcasting and Internet defendants who allegedly erroneously reported he had filed for bankruptcy.

In the nine-page ruling in Pippen v. NBC Universal Media LLC et al (Case No. 12-3294), Judge Frank Easterbrook said the Basketball Hall of Fame Forward had failed to satisfy the elevated burden of proof of actual malice that public figures must meet in defamation claims, which means showing that the media defendants published the purportedly false statements knowing they were untrue or with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.

The 48-year-old Pippen filed suit in 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illionis (see "TUOL" post 12/29/11) alleging that the defendants falsely reported that he had sustained $120 million in financial losses and had filed for bankruptcy, which he claimed cost him fees from endorsements and personal appearances.

"Since Pippen's opportunities diminished after the statements were made," Judge Easterbrook wrote, "he believes they must have diminished because the statements were made. This theory of causation is weak for professional athletes, whose earnings related to past stardom drop as time passes since their playing days."

Judge Easterbrook's opinion also rejected Pippen's argument that the defendants were liable for not correcting the false information about his financial well-being in online accounts. "[E]xcluding the Internet from the single publication rule would eviscerate the statute of limitations and expose online publishers to potentially limitless liability," Judge Easterbrook concluded.

Under the single publication rule, subsequent circulation of an allegedly libelous story does not create fresh claims of defamation; rather, the claim for relief for defamation is complete when the initial publication occurs. Evidently, Pippen's  court appearances require Michael Jordan and Phil Jackson to be successful.

Tip of the hat to THR, Esq. Web site for its full-court press on this story.

Federal Judge Blots Out Noted Art Authenticator's Libel Suit

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In a 51-page ruling in Biro v. Conde Nast et al. (Case No. 11-civ.-4442), United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge J. Paul Oetken tossed a defamation claim brought by a forensic art expert arising from an unflattering 2010 article in The New Yorker.

David Grann, author of the article, The Mark of a Masterpiece: The man who keeps finding famous fingerprints on uncelebrated works of art, was sued for defamation by Canadian art authenticator Peter Paul Biro, as was The New Yorker's publisher, Conde Nast, and in subsequent amended complaints, Gawker Media, Business Insider, among others. The 16,000-word article casts a suspicious eye on Biro's methodology that matched fingerprints on artwork to the artists who painted the pieces.

Oetken, who according to accounts by Courthouse News Service and The New York Times, has been widely published in scientific journals and often lectures at universities, was deemed a limited public figure by the Court. Judge Oetken ruled Biro failed to meet the elevated burden of proof of actual malice in his defamation claim or show that Grann fabricated quotes or relied on "wholly unverified or patently unreliable sources" in preparing The Mark of a Masterpiece.

In granting the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Oetken found: "There is little question that a reader may walk away from the article with a negative impression of Biro, but that impression would be largely the result of statements of fact that Biro does not allege to be false."  Attorneys for the plaintiff plan to appeal the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

NY Judge: Google Must ID Anonymous Blogger

Image via CrunchBase

New York Supreme Court Justice Debra A. James has ordered Google, Inc. to disclose the identity of an anonymous blogger whose two Web sites allegedly defame a Manhattan-based consumer lawyer.

As reported by the Wall St. Journal Law Blog (blogs.wsj.com), in a Stipulated Order in Fredrick Schulman v. Google, Inc. et al. (Case No. 155629/2013), Justice James ruled the plaintiff had demonstrated a potential cause of action against the creator of the sites fredrickschulmancrookedattorney.com and stopfredrickschulman.blogspot.com and was entitled to pre-action discovery identifying the blogger under CPLR sec. 3012(c).

Schulman alleges he has suffered harm to his reputation and pecuniary loss because of the "malicious" online campaign against him.  Google was ordered to notify the unnamed blogger and alert him/her that he/she may challenge the efforts to disclose his/her identity.  The court discontinued the plaintiff's action as to Google.

Cook County Judge Tosses Ex-NBC Reporter's Libel Suit Against CBS

In a nine-page ruling last week in Jacobson v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. (Case No. 2008-L-007331), Cook County Circuit Court Judge Jeffrey Lawrence threw out a five-year-old defamation suit brought by a former Chicago NBC tv reporter against  her rival CBS affiliate.

Radio talk show host Amy Jacobson sued CBS for $1 million in 2008, roughly a year after the station aired footage of a bathing suit-clad Jacobson at a pool party hosted by Craig Stebic, whom police purportedly have identified as a "person of interest" in the April 2007, disappearance of his wife Lisa, though no charges have been brought against him, according to an article in The Chicago Tribune. The Tribune article reported that Judge Lawrence ruled against Jacobson for not proving the CBS story contained false statements about her. Judge Lawrence further held some of the alleged offensive content constituted First Amendment-protected statements of opinion. NBC fired Jacobson soon after the CBS story aired.

Jacobson plans to appeal the adverse decision, according to the Tribune article, contending she was not a public figure when the CBS footage was broadcast.

                                                                           

Beyonce's Dad Sues The Sun for Defamation

In Mathew Knowles & Music World Entertainment v. The Sun (Case No. 4:2013-cv-01845), filed last week in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the father and former business manager of 31-year-old superstar Beyonce sued a U.K. tabloid for defamation and breach of contract.

According to an article in The Guardian, Knowles, 62, alleges The Sun, which is published by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.-owned NI Group Ltd., doctored a March 2013, interview he gave to Sun reporter Georgina Dickinson so as to appear as if his singer/actress daughter had "cut him out of her life." Additionally, the lawsuit contends that The Sun reneged on a contractual commitment to pay Knowles, who oversaw his daughter's career until 2011, for the exclusive sit-down interview.

The Complaint alleges that Dickinson's original text submitted to editors was radically rewritten to portray a father/daughter rift that doesn't exist. Knowles acknowledges the professional break-up with Beyonce, who is married to rapper Jay-Z, but claims a strong personal bond remains between them that was allegedly misrepresented in The Sun article that claimed he had yet to meet his granddaughter, Blue Ivy, who was 14 months old when the interview occurred.

The suit, to which The Sun  has yet to respond, seeks actual and punitive damages.

Federal Judge Awards Daily Costs for Quashing Subpoena of Journalist

(Photo credit: The Library of Congress)

United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts Judge Richard G. Stearns last week in Louise Durand v. Massachusetts Department of Health et al. (Case No. 1:12-cv-10630) took the unusual step not only of quashing a defendant's subpoena of a journalist, but also of awarding the newspaper $8,200 in costs spent defending against the subpoena.

In a two-page ruling, Judge Stearns said Dr. Theresa Harpold, a defendant in a medical negligence claim, failed to show The (Brockton) Enterprise reporter Alex Bloom was the only possible source of specific  information allegedly important to her defense to warrant compelling Bloom to testify. To overcome a reporter's qualified privilege to preserve information provided by confidential sources, Judge Stearns wrote, "a party must show that the summons of a journalist to a deposition is not frivolous, that the information sought is critical to the merits of the claim at issue, and that other sources for the information are not available."

Dr. Harpold is one of several defendants in the malpractice suit brought by plaintiff Louise Durand, a nursing supervisor for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Public Health, who alleges Dr. Harpold abused her authority by signing an order that caused Durand to undergo an involuntary psychiatric evaluation that purportedly proved unnecessary. Relying on confidential sources, Bloom wrote an article in January 2013, about the Complaint in The Enterprise. Lawyers for Dr. Harpold sought Bloom's testimony to learn the identity of Bloom's source, whom they suspected was the plaintiff.

Kudos to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (www.rcfp.org) for keeping "TUOL" apprised of this case in our stomping grounds while our devoted staff was away on vacation last week.

Boston Marathon Bombing 'Bag Men' Front Page Photo Sparks Libel Suit Against NY Post

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A defamation suit against the News Corp.-owned tabloid New York Post has been filed in Suffolk County (Mass.) Superior Court by two men who appeared in a page one photo at the peak of the police manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombers.

According to articles by Reuters and the National Law Journal, 24-year-old Yassine Zaime and 16-year-old Salheddin Barhoum are suing the Post for defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The two Moroccan emigres, avid running enthusiasts, watched participants near the finish line in the Boston Marathon in April, but left two hours before rigged pressure cooker explosive devices detonated, killing three and wounding hundreds of spectators.

According to the plaintiffs' complaint, the two men voluntarily went to their respective local police stations to answer questions about their presence at the race after learning that a photo of them was circulating on various social media sites. The complaint states that on April 18, the same day police purportedly exonerated them, a photo of the two men appeared on page 1 of the Post with the headline: "Bag Men: Feds seek this duo pictured at Boston Marathon."

The lead sentence of the Post story that day began: "Investigators probing the deadly Boston marathon bombings are circulating photos of two men spotted chatting near the packed finish line, the Post has learned."  Inside pages depicted two more photos of the plaintiffs, in one of which, a plaintiff's head was circled in red and captioned: "Cops are seeking these two men (above) who were spotted near the site of the Boston blasts."

Later that same day, the FBI released photos of  two Chechen brothers authorities identified as suspects in the bombing, Tamarlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the former of whom died in a firefight with police and the latter of whom remains in custody.

"The plaintiffs were not suspects and were not being sought by law enforcement," the complaint alleges. "The Post had no basis whatsoever to suggest that they were, especially in light of a warning on Wednesday to news media, by federal authorities, to exercise caution in reporting about this very matter."

The complaint further alleges: "The front page would lead a reasonable reader to believe that plaintiffs had bombs in their bags, that they were involved in causing the Boston Marathon bombing."

For its part, the Post maintains it never identified the two men as "suspects," but rather, as two men whom police wanted to find. Included in the Post story on April 18 was a sentence that read: "It was not immediately clear if the men in the law-enforcement photos are the same men in the surveillance videos."  The Post has not published an apology to Zaime or Barhoum.

Vegas Billionaire Adelson Hits 3 Lemons in Subpoena Bid of WSJ Reporter's Notes

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

New York Supreme Court Justice Donna M. Mills this week quashed a subpoena by attorneys for 79-year-old casino magnate Sheldon Adelson seeking notes and phone records of Wall St. Journal ("WSJ") reporter Kate O'Keefe arising from a defamation action against former Adelson employee Steven Jacobs.

In her four-page decision in Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum on behalf of The Wall St. Journal v. Sheldon Adelson (Matter No. 100270/13), Justice Mills found that the WSJ was protected by Article 1, Sec. 8 of the New York Constitution as well as the state's shield law [N.Y. Civil Rights Law sec. 79-h]. Adelson "failed to overcome the qualified privilege for non-confidential newsgathering material," Justice Mills wrote, in dismissing the subpoena.

Under the state's shield law that protects a journalist from having to disclose confidential sources and information, a party seeking such material must satisfy a three-pronged burden that the information is: 1)highly relevant, 2)vital to the party's legal claim, and 3)unavailable through any other reasonable means. Adelson contended his Florida defamation complaint against Jacobs that alleges Jacobs accused him of condoning prostitution, necessitated obtaining the WSJ notes and communications over a three-year period involving Jacobs and O'Keefe, who wrote an article concerning the prostitution claim against Adelson. In a separate Nevada action, Jacobs has brought an employment case against Adelson.

Justice Mills wrote that Adelson "has not shown why he is entitled to the material sought."  The Las Vegas mogul's streak of bad luck, which included tossing away millions of dollars in campaign contributions to support failed GOP candidates Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, apparently has not run its course.

No word yet on whether Adelson plans to appeal Justice Mills' ruling. Tip of the hat to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (www.rcfp.org) Web site for reporting on this case.

No 'Puppy Love' Lost Between Al Fayed & Anka

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Harrods department store magnate Mohamed Al Fayed wants long-ago teen idol Paul Anka's autobiography My Way pulled off the shelves, and is seeking punitive damages from the Lonely Boy crooner, Courthouse News Service reports.

The billionaire's decision to drop Anka, so to speak, has taken the form of a multiple count complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court, including claims alleging defamation, false light invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Al Fayed alleges My Way co-authors Anka and David Dalton, along with defendants St. Martin's Press, MacMillan Publishers, Holtzbrink Publishers, the Daily Mail, Associated Newspapers and DMG Media, harmed him by portraying his late son, Dodi Al Fayed, as a cocaine-abusing, womanizing deadbeat who welched on a loan from Anka.

Dodi Al Fayed died in a Paris car crash on August 31, 1997, along with Diana, Princess of Wales. Condemning My Way as sensationalized, the plaintiff's complaint accuses Anka of trading on Dodi Al Fayed's name and the public's fascination and love affair with Princess Diana to boost sales of his book. The complaint claims Anka wrote that he lent Dodi $150,000 after U.S. Customs Agents allegedly seized money Dodi purportedly tried to smuggle into the States. The complaint alleges that Mohamed Al Fayed covered the sum that Dodi failed to repay, which the book purportedly portrays as "hush money" paid to Anka when he called the plaintiff and allegedly threatened to go to the police.

My Way was serialized last March, excerpts of which appeared in The Daily Mail newspaper in the U.K. Generally speaking, the dead can't be libeled, so Mohamed claims My Way harms his reputation by falsely suggesting he was "in agreement with Anka's outrageous assessment of Dodi's purported poor character as a criminal, womanizing, drug-using deadbeat who lived beyond his means and who had to have 'Daddy' come to his rescue, even to the extent of an alleged willingness to pay 'hush money.'"

Don't expect to hear Put Your Head on My Shoulders or Having My Baby piped into Harrods' elevators anytime soon.

Texas Solons Send Gov. Perry Libel Mitigation Bill

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Texas lawmakers this week voted 148-0 to approve H.B. 1759, the Defamation Mitigation Act, a measure backed by publishers and the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, the Associated Press reported.

The Senate-amended bill swept through the House and is headed to Gov. Rick Perry's desk for his signature. The measure is intended "to provide a method for a person who has been defamed by a publication or broadcast to mitigate any perceived damage or injury." 

The bill requires the media outlet in question to publish a timely correction as conspicuous as the original offending speech. The measure puts a ceiling on the amount of damages recoverable for non-malicious errors and prevents a plaintiff from receiving punitive damages unless the plaintiff demands a retraction by the media defendant within 90 days of the allegedly defamatory speech.

Massachusetts Racetrack 'SLAPPed' with Legal Costs for Lame Libel Suit

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Plainridge Racecourse, d/b/a Ourway Realty, has dropped its appeal of a Norfolk County Superior Court judge's dismissal of its defamation suit against a Plainville (Mass.) opponent of slot machine gambling at the harness racing track and will pay the defendant's attorneys fees of almost $25,000 pursuant to the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute [M.G.L. c. 231, sec. 59H], the Attleboro Sun Chronicle reported.

The libel case, Ourway Realty, LLC v. Thomas Keen (Case No. 12-cv-00963), was brought by the track against the Plainville resident, who maintained a Web site and Facebook page advocating against adding slot machines at the track, based on a poster's comment on the Web site regarding a home-security photo of an intruder that police should search the race track to find the burglar. The ACLU of Massachusetts, through private counsel, successfully argued a motion to dismiss the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, which states in relevant part: "In any case in which a party asserts that the civil claims, counterclaims or cross claims against said party are based on said party's exercise of its right of petition under the constitution of the United States or of the commonwealth, said party may bring a special motion to dismiss."

The Sun Chronicle article reported that the plaintiff would pay the defendant's legal costs, but that no damages were assessed against the race track.

Ex-Playboy Bunny Gets Nothing Off Her Rocker: Judge Tosses Libel Suit

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In Jane Doe v. Sammy Hagar (Case No. 6:2011-cv-02067), United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa Judge Linda A. Reade last week granted summary judgment in favor of the one-time Van Halen vocalist, dismissing a defamation suit brought by a former Playboy bunny who alleged she was libeled by statements in the 65-year-old Hagar's 2011 memoir, Red: My Uncensored Life in Rock.

As reported by the Associated Press, the plaintiff, a Waterloo, Iowa, woman identified only as Jane Doe, alleged she became pregnant with Hagar's child in 1988 after an affair she had with The Red Rocker in the '80s. The child died shortly after birth in 1989.

In his memoir, Hagar denied being the father of the child and accused the woman of trying to extort money from him. Judge Reade said the plaintiff was unable to prove she suffered damages because of the purported offending statement in the memoir and that a key element of a defamation claim--that the false statement be of or concerning the plaintiff--was not satisfied because Hagar did not name her in his book.

Hagar's career as a solo performer and as the lead vocalist for Van Halen after David Lee Roth left the band, boasts several hits, including Little White Lie and Your Love is Driving Me Crazy.

NY Daily News Wins Libel Suit on Principal

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Describing a school administrator as a firebrand and a principal of hate, constituted First Amendment-protected opinion, a  Queens County New York Supreme Court Judge ruled this week in tossing a defamation suit against the tabloid New York Daily News.

Judge Robert McDonald found plaintiff Frank Borzellieri was a limited public figure whose 2012 defamation claim failed to satisfy the higher actual malice standard because the allegedly offending statements were "incapable of being objectively characterized as true or false." Judge McDonald elevated the plaintiff to limited public figure status because the controversial principal injected himself into a public controversy by writing racially divisive articles and books, according to an account by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Web site (www.rcfp.org).

Borzellieri was fired from his position as principal of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Roman Catholic School in 2012 after a series of articles written by the defendant raised questions about whether he was involved in a white supremacist group. The plaintiff didn't deny his views, which included that growing Hispanic and black populations would plunge America into a "New Dark Age." Rather, he claimed the Daily News defamed him by portraying him as a firebranding white supremacist. Apparently, that's worse than being a simple garden-variety white supremacist.

"Subjective characterizations of the plaintiff's behavior made in the articles are nonactionable opinion," Judge McDonald concluded. The case was Borzellieri v. Daily News LP et al (Case No. 11731/12).