Lenny Dykstra Deemed 'Libel-Proof' In Defamation Suit Loss To Ron Darling And Publisher

from the strike-everything-you're-out dept

Defamation lawsuits often fail because of the high bar plaintiffs need to meet to prove defamation -- especially of a public figure. But, while there are lots of ways to lose a defamation lawsuit as a plaintiff, my favorite must certainly be the concept of a libel-proof plaintiff. This would be the notion that a plaintiff cannot be libeled or defamed if that plaintiff's reputation is so absolutely horrendous that further damage to it is impossible.

In rare cases, a plaintiff can be “libel-proof”, meaning he or she has a reputation so tarnished that it couldn’t be brought any lower, even by the publication of false statements of fact.

Now, these situations are indeed rare. After all, who out there is so broken in the eyes of society, so villainous, so viewed as low of a public figure in reputation as one can go -- Oh, hi there, Lenny Dykstra!

You may recall that in April of 2019 former Mets and Phillies outfielder Len Dykstra sued his former teammate and current Mets commentator Ron Darling for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The suit arose out of claims in Darling’s then recently-published autobiography alleging that Dykstra shouted racial slurs at Red Sox pitcher Dennis “Oil Can” Boyd before Boyd took the mound in a 1986 World Series game. Dykstra lashed out at Darling over it, denying it ever happened and then filed suit. Then everyone went quiet.

That silence led up to the present, where the court has dismissed Dykstra's case entirely, noting that he is of such poor reputation that whether Darling's claims in his book are true or not, they hardly matter and won't move the needle on the public perception of him. A quick perusal of Dykstra's personal life section on his Wikipedia page tells you the whole story: steroid use, businesses in bankruptcy, credit card fraud, jail time. So, you know, not a guy of famed repute.

Which led the court to toss the case, stating that Dykstra is libel-proof.

The nature and seriousness of Dykstra’s criminal offenses, which include fraud, embezzlement, grand theft, and lewd conduct and assault with a deadly weapon, and notably the degree of publicity they received, have already established his general bad reputation for fairness and decency far worse than the alleged racially charged bench-jockeying in the reference could . . .

. . . Given the aforesaid litany of stories concerning Dykstra’s poor and mean-spirited behavior particularly toward various groups including racial minorities, women, and the LGBTQ community—this Court finds that, as a matter of law, the reference cannot “induce an evil opinion of [Dykstra] in the minds of right-thinking persons” or “deprive him of their friendly intercourse in society,” as that “evil opinion” has long existed.

And, in typical Dykstra fashion, he's not taking it particularly well. Instead, Dykstra is ranting on both the internet and to journalists, claiming that Darling faked his cancer diagnosis and treatment and that the owners of the NY Mets franchise were in on this fakery in some kind of scheme of fraud to achieve... something? It's all hard to follow, except that it sure looks like the very kind of defamation that Dykstra himself was complaining of. Oh, and the judge was bribed.

In the story, Dykstra claims, without any evidence whatsoever, that Ron Darling — who was diagnosed with thyroid cancer and underwent surgery for it last year — “faked his cancer,” and that “the Wilpons knew all about it, and they’re in on it.” He claims has has “documented proof” of his claim, though provided none of it to Miller. Miller previously reported that Dykstra “had some dirt” on Darling, but this is the first time he has publicly accused Darling of faking his cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Dykstra further claimed that the judge who dismissed his defamation suit against Darling was bribed, saying “obviously the judge was bleeping paid off or something . . . I don’t give a bleep.”

He may not, but Darling, the Mets owners, and the judge probably aren't also libel-proof.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: defamation, lenny dykstra, libel-proof, ron darling