Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Armendariz, David E.
• Arishita, Michelle K.
• Borger, John P.
• Harris, Natalie A.
• Healey, Brendan J.
• Hickey, Russell
• Kelley, Matthew E.
• Kissinger, Ashley
• Larsen, Joseph R.
• Leatherbury, Thomas S.
• Mast, Katherine E.
• Rodriguez, Kristen
• Walker, Leita
• Williams, Thomas J.
• Zansberg, Steven D.
• Mandell, Steven P
• Baron, Steven L

Titel

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN MEDIA, PRIVACY, DEFAMATION, AND ADVERTISING LAW

Ist Teil von

• Tort trial & insurance practice law journal, 2016-01, Vol.51 (2), p.543-580

Ort / Verlag

Chicago: Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section, American Bar Association

Erscheinungsjahr

2016

Quelle

Alma/SFX Local Collection

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• The Eleventh Circuit refused to apply Georgia's anti-SLAPP statute after concluding that the statute directly conflicts with Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 Specifically, Georgia's anti-SLAPP statute contains a verification requirement for filing a complaint in actions implicating free speech or petitioning rights. Because the statute's verification requirement directly conflicts with Rule 11, which does not require verified complaints, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that Georgia's antiSLAPP statute does not apply in diversity actions in federal court.2 The D.C. Circuit similarly refused to apply Washington D.C.'s antiSLAPP statute.3 Affirming dismissal of a libel case, the D.C. Circuit concluded that the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act conflicted with pre-trial judgment standards under Rules 12 and 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.4 Although several other federal circuits have applied the pretrial dismissal provisions of state anti-SLAPP statutes, notwithstanding Rules 12 and 56, the D.C. Circuit was not persuaded.5 The court held that Rule 12(b)(6), not the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act, required dismissal of the libel claim as a matter of D.C. common law.6 B. Defamation Suit Against Coach Jim Boeheim Reinstated The blurred line between fact and opinion gained clarity when New York's highest court reinstated a defamation lawsuit filed by two former Syracuse University ball boys against famed basketball coach Jim Boeheim.7 The lawsuit arose from comments made by Boeheim after two former Syracuse ball boys accused longtime assistant coach Bernie Fine of molesting them as children.8 During a press conference, Boeheim called the ball boys liars out for money.9 The trial court dismissed the case, holding that Boeheim's comments were biased, personal opinions, and not assertions of fact. Brown refused to continue with the trial, and a mistrial was declared.16 After the TimesPicayune published a report on the incident, Brown sued the news organization and its reporter alleging that the headline was maliciously false.1'' The trial court granted summary judgment to the newspaper and reporter, holding the article, including its headline, was true.18 The Louisiana Court of Appeal reversed the district court's ruling, finding that the newspaper's characterization of Brown's conduct as a "desertion" of his client was grossly inaccurate and defamatory as used in the headline.19 Instead, the appellate court concluded that Brown's actions attempted to protect his client's interests and adhere to the fiduciary duties he owed to his client.20 II.