23 April

Sticky

Forum Non Conveniens – Heavy Burden for Defendant

“The common law doctrine of forum non conveniens, which translates to mean ‘inconvenient forum,' is an equitable, judicially crafted rule designed to allow a court to dismiss, in certain limited circumstances, a lawsuit with little connection to Florida that would be better suited and fairly litigated elsewhere.” Gordon v. Bethel, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D804a (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (citation omitted). A recent case deals with this limited doctrine of forum non conveniens. In this case, a plaintiff filed a defamation lawsuit in Broward County. The plaintiff is a resident of Broward County and operates his business out of Broward County. The defendants...

20 March

0 Comments

Sticky

Florida’s Single Publication Rule (and Defamation Claims)

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Florida Statute s. 770.07 provides: The cause of action for damages founded upon a single publication or exhibition or utterance, as described in s. 770.05, shall be deemed to have accrued at the time of the first publication or exhibition or utterance thereof in this state. This statute is known as the “single publication rule.” The statute of limitations accrues at the time of the first publication and does not get delayed or tolled due to continued publication. The single publication rule applies to causes for action for “libel or slander, invasion of privacy, or any other tort founded upon any single publication, exhibition, or utterance,...

20 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Venue for Defamatory Social Media Post

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

A defamatory social media post can lead to…you guessed it…a defamation claim asserted against the author of the post. Think about this the next time you post something on social media for the world to see. Once you post something on social media, there are many persons that receive and read the post. A question becomes where is the right venue to sue someone for a defamatory social media posting. The recent decision in Lowery v. McBee, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D1337b (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) answered this question. In this case, the plaintiff sued the defendant for posting a defamatory post on...

08 May

0 Comments

Sticky

A Defamation Claim of a Public Figure

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Stating a defamation claim of a public figure is different and more rigorous than stating a defamation claim of a private figure. Florida employs a two-step process to determine if a person is a public figure: “First, the court must determine whether there is a public controversy. Second, the court must…determine whether the plaintiff played a sufficiently central role in the instant controversy to be considered a public figure for purposes of that controversy.” Reardon v. WPLG, LLC, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D836a, n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (internal quotations and citations omitted). To assert a claim for defamation of a public figure, a...

03 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Moving for a Remittitur to Reduce Jury’s Verdict

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

When a damages verdict comes in high for a plaintiff, it is not uncommon for a defendant to move for a remittitur for the trial judge to reduce the amount of damages arguing that the verdict is unreasonably excessive. A motion for remittitur is a motion to reduce the jury's verdict award. Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal in Fernalld v. ABB, Inc., 46 Fla.L.Weekly D542a (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) explained: When considering a motion for remittitur, the court must determine whether the amount of a damages award “is excessive . . . in light of the facts and circumstances which...

05 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Absolute Immunity Protects Public Officials from Defamation

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Thinking about suing a public official for defamation? Think twice (or three or four times) before doing so. Public officials acting within the scope of their duties enjoy absolute immunity from statements they make. Stated differently, they are absolutely immune from a defamation lawsuit. In Quintero v. Diaz, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D51b (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), a former Director of Parks and Recreation for a city sued the Mayor of that City for defamation per se based on public defamatory statements contained in a termination letter. The parties stipulated that the Mayor was acting within the scope of his...

13 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Pre-Suit Notice Condition Precedent Requirement before Suing News Media for Defamation Not Extended to Books and Movies

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Florida Statute s. 770.01 contains a pre-suit notice condition precedent requirement before a person can sue the news media for defamation. It provides: Before any civil action is brought for publication or broadcast, in a newspaper, periodical, or other medium, of a libel or slander, the plaintiff shall, at least 5 days before instituting such action, serve notice in writing on the defendant, specifying the article or broadcast and the statements therein which he or she alleges to be false and defamatory. In a recent opinion, Mazur v. Baraya, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1795b (Fla. 2d DCA 2019), the issue was whether...

19 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Asserting Basis for Punitive Damages against Corporate Entity

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

A defamation claim can serve as a basis to amend a complaint to add punitive damages. From prior articles (here or here) you know that asserting a basis for punitive damages is not made as of the date the lawsuit is filed. Rather, a plaintiff must comply with the statutory, procedural requirements and move to amend to assert punitive damages by proffering evidence that there is “a reasonable showing by evidence in the record…which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages.” Fla. Stat. s. 768.72(1). There are times a plaintiff wants to attribute an employee’s defamation of character to...

18 February

0 Comments

Sticky

Defamation Per Se Opens Door for Punitive Damages

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

A defamation per se action opens the door for punitive damages even if actual damages cannot be shown or proven. Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc. v. Sadow, 43 So.3d 710, 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). This is because malice is presumed and, thus, the statements are presumed harmful as a matter of law. Id. However, “proof of liability for defamation per se requires a showing that the declarant knew or should have known the defamatory statement was not true.” Tilton v. Wrobel, 198 So.3d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Hence, while a claimant may not be able to prove actual damages...