Educator Sued Because Of Things A Journalist Wrote Collects $10,000 In Legal Fees From Idiot Plaintiff

from the at-long-last-Rayburn's-Tennessean-nightmare-is-over dept

There's finally a bit of a happy ending to one of the more ridiculous defamation lawsuits we've covered. In June 2017, the ousted head of a Tennessee culinary arts programs took umbrage to things written about him by a local journalist. The article in The Tennessean expressed pleasure in seeing Tom Loftis removed from the culinary arts program and replaced by Randy Rayburn, who journalist Jim Myers felt was a positional upgrade.

Naturally, the ousted Loftis decided to [checks last 18 months of notes] sue his replacement for things a journalist wrote. Tennessee has no anti-SLAPP law, so the lawsuit managed to drag on for well over a year, including one appeal by Loftis after losing the first round.

The initial court decision should have ended it. The judge found Loftis could not even satisfy the minimal requirements to move it past the first motion to dismiss. The case was dismissed with prejudice and Rayburn awarded legal fees. As Rayburn's lawyer, Daniel Horwitz, pointed out then, the legal system wasn't put in place to "litigate hurt feelings."

Loftis appealed. It went no better at the higher level. After pointing out Loftis' ill-advised decision to sue his replacement rather than the journalist who actually wrote the offending article, the court went on to state that no reasonable person would find the article offensive and that none of it -- no matter who wrote/said it -- even approached the outskirts of Libelville.

The appeals court also elicited this amazing confession from Loftis' legal representation during oral arguments:

Judge Neal McBrayer: “Why isn’t the Tennessean the proper party here?”

Gary Blackburn (Attorney for Mr. Loftis): “Your Honor, there were practical reasons for that . . . . It is easier to bring a lawsuit against the person who uttered the words than against a publication that buys ink by the barrel, as they say, and has lots of resources.“

Translation: we thought it might be easier to intimidate Randy Rayburn than the local news.

At long last, Randy Rayburn is finally getting paid for being jerked around by a year-and-a-half of ridiculous litigation.

Nashville restaurateur Randy Rayburn was awarded $10,000 for attorney's fees after a defamation lawsuit against him was tossed out.

It is the maximum total amount allowed under the state's frivolous lawsuit law. The cash payout comes after a state appeals court dismissed the suit against Rayburn, calling it "far-fetched" in its reasoning.

This is nice, but a solid anti-SLAPP law would be better. That would have put Loftis on the hook for all of Rayburn's legal fees, rather than limit it to a capped amount. It's better than nothing and it may serve as a deterrent for future would-be litigants who think suing someone into silence is the best response to criticism. Here's Daniel Horwitz's statement on the ruling:

Let this order also serve as a stark warning to anyone else who makes the mistake of trying to threaten or intimidate critics for exercising their First Amendment rights.

Filed Under: anti-slapp, defamation, jim myers, randy rayburn, slapp, tennessee, tom loftis

Appeals Court Finally Shuts Down Bogus Lawsuit Targeting A School Official For Words A Journalist Wrote

from the PERRY-MASON-MOMENT-INCLUDED dept

At long last, one of the stupider defamation lawsuits in recent history is finally over. Last year, the ousted director of a Tennessee culinary school (Tom Loftis) sued over an article appearing in a local paper. The article, written by journalist Jim Myers, insinuated the departure of Loftis signaled a return to quality for the culinary program. It also spoke highly of his replacement, Randy Rayburn.

The article featured few direct quotes from Rayburn. The bulk of it consisted of Myers' take on the program's declining quality while Loftis was at the helm. So, naturally, Tom Loftis decided to sue his replacement, Randy Rayburn, who was responsible for none of the supposedly defamatory content contained in the article.

Loftis argued this was "defamation by innuendo," all the while refusing to target the journalist and paper responsible for the alleged innuendo. He not only lost his lawsuit, but now owes legal fees for that attempt. Rather than accept this loss and cut a check, Loftis appealed. This recent state appeals court decision [PDF], via Randy Rayburn's legal representative, Daniel Horwitz, has nothing positive to say about Loftis' bogus lawsuit.

First, the court points out the obvious: Rayburn didn't say the things Loftis is suing about.

To prevail on his defamation by implication or innuendo claim, Mr. Loftis must establish in his complaint that Mr. Rayburn published the statements and that the meaning reasonably conveyed by the statements was defamatory.

[...]

Mr. Rayburn is not the author of the article, and he is not quoted anywhere in the article. However, Mr. Loftis asserted in his amended complaint that during an interview with Mr. Myers, Mr. Rayburn spoke the words that Mr. Myers printed.

Even "liberally construing" Loftis' argument doesn't help. The court agrees that giving his allegations an extremely favorable reading supports his claim for "defamation by implication," but when all the facts are in, the allegation is baseless.

Mr. Loftis does not question the literal truth of the statements in the article, but he argues they imply that he personally was to blame for the unqualified line cooks in Nashville. We do not agree. Mr. Myers’ statement that the school’s culinary program was not turning out qualified students appears to have been based on the feedback Mr. Rayburn got from other chefs in the area. The article does not suggest that all of the unqualified line cooks in the area received training at the culinary program at Nashville Tech or that Mr. Loftis was to blame for the dearth of qualified line cooks, as Mr. Loftis argues. Mr. Loftis is not mentioned at all until the second page, toward the end of the article, when Mr. Myers wrote: “They started by cleaning house from the top by removing director Tom Loftis.” Mr. Myers does not clarify who “they” were, and the article does not impugn Mr. Loftis personally. Contrary to Mr. Loftis’s argument, we do not believe the article can reasonably be interpreted as depicting Mr. Loftis as “personally responsible for the perceived deficiencies of the culinary program.”

It follows this up with a blunt take on Loftis' creative legal thinking.

We are not bound by Mr. Loftis’s interpretation of the statements because we find they do not reasonably have the meaning he ascribes to them.

It also disposes of his "false light invasion of privacy" claim. While the statements made to the Tennessean reporter might satisfy the publicity requirement (in essence, Rayburn could assume that by speaking to a reporter his comments would be published in some form), this claim similarly fails because the statements were made by the reporter -- not Randy Rayburn. And even if they were, they do not even approach the the "false light" standard.

We do not, however, believe that the statements can be considered “highly offensive to a reasonable person,” as they must be for Mr. Loftis to proceed with this claim. For the reasons we found the statements in Mr. Myers’ article fail to imply a defamatory meaning, we also find they are not susceptible to the requisite inferences casting Mr. Loftis in a false light. We do not believe a reasonable person would be justified, in the eyes of the community, of being seriously offended and aggrieved by the statements at issue.

Finally, there's this: Tom Loftis' attorney made a stunning admission during oral arguments. It's a fact common to many bogus defamation cases, but one rarely stated so baldly by legal representation while still engaged in bogus litigation. Defamation lawsuits are a handy way to silence critics, especially when the target of the lawsuit is perceived to be ill-equipped to tackle the case in court. In response to the court's logical question as to why Loftis chose to sue Randy Rayburn rather than the journalist or paper whose article Loftis found defamatory, his lawyer had this to say:

Judge Neal McBrayer: “Why isn’t the Tennessean the proper party here?”

Gary Blackburn (Attorney for Mr. Loftis): “Your Honor, there were practical reasons for that . . . . It is easier to bring a lawsuit against the person who uttered the words than against a publication that buys ink by the barrel, as they say, and has lots of resources.“

This is Loftis' lawyer saying he felt he had a better chance of winning against Randy Rayburn than against a newspaper that might have the legal team and resources to put up a fight. Blackburn tries to disguise it by saying Rayburn "uttered the words," but the oral argument [beginning at 6:05] includes the court's rebuttal that the article contains "no direct quotes." This statement lays bare the lawsuit's true aims: to ruin a replacement school official who seems to be better liked by Tennessean journalists, if nothing else.

Filed Under: anti-slapp, defamation, free speech, jim myers, randy rayburn, slapp, tennesee, tom loftis

Ousted Educator Tries To Talk Appeals Court Into Letting Him Sue Someone For Things Someone Else Said

from the self-screwing-intensifies dept

Because prudence is always in short supply but stupid is the world's foremost renewable resource, an ousted director of a Tennessee culinary school is appealing the dismissal of a defamation suit he brought against his replacement for things a journalist said.

The original lawsuit didn't live long, fortunately. Heavily quoting a Tennessean article by journalist Jim Myers, Tom Loftis -- the former head of the culinary school at the Nashville university -- sued Randy Rayburn (Loftis' replacement) over things Myers said.

Loftis apparently expected his status as a private person (given more reputational protection by courts than public figures) to overcome the deficiencies of his lawsuit. But the deficiencies won and Loftis lost, having failed to show how words written by Jim Myers were somehow libelous statements issued directly by Randy Rayburn.

Loftis should have quit while he was behind. He's already on the hook for the legal fees racked up by Rayburn's defense at this point, but apparently feels the best use of a university severance package is as an accelerant for the fire consuming what's left of his reputation.

Daniel Horwitz, who defended Rayburn against Loftis' first legal leap of faith, is back on board defending against the appeal. According to Loftis, the lower court erred by refusing to read his defamation lawsuit the way Loftis would prefer it to be read: as a false light invasion of privacy lawsuit.

There are shades of difference, but the latter tort allows negative impressions to be actionable, rather than relying on actual defamatory statements made by the defendant. This is about the only choice Loftis has (other than walking away from this) considering there's no indication the statements he's suing about are anything other than Jim Myers' (not Randy Rayburn's) opinions.

It won't make any difference. The allegations remain unchanged. Loftis is still trying to twist the words of a journalist into statements made by his replacement. But nowhere in Myers' article on the cooking school will you find a direct quote of Randy Rayburn. For that matter, you'll find almost nothing in the piece that indicates the statements Loftis is suing over are anything more than Myers' take on the Nashville culinary scene. This is hammered home in Rayburn's reply brief [PDF], something neither he nor his representation probably thought they'd ever have to do.

The entirety of Mr. Loftis’s complaint concerned statements that were neither made by nor attributed to the Defendant, Mr. Randy Rayburn. In fact, at no point in the article was Mr. Rayburn even quoted. Further, nearly all of the objectively innocuous statements referenced in the article did not mention Mr. Loftis, were incapable of conveying any defamatory meaning or inference as a matter of law, and could not seriously be considered “highly offensive” by any reasonable person. Critically, Mr. Loftis also pleaded that the only statements in the article that did mention him were accurate—rendering this lawsuit “possibly unprecedented” in its frivolousness.

It goes on to point out the negative implications of the court treating this appeal with any more respect than it actually deserves.

Despite its frivolousness, however, the implications that the instant lawsuit will carry if its dismissal is not forcefully affirmed by this Court are anything but. Simply put: forcing the supposed source of a news story to defend against a $1.5 million lawsuit for the transgression of being mentioned alongside coverage that a hypersensitive plaintiff considers unflattering poses serious and severe risks to the viability of newsgathering in Tennessee. Consequently, if allowed to move forward, this lawsuit would threaten both free speech and the public’s willingness to engage with journalists at all.

I don't think Loftis has any better chance on appeal. His brief [PDF] claims the court never considered his false light claim, but Rayburn's reply points out the lower court clearly did so… and it did so right out of the gate.

Looking to the Trial Court’s actual Order, the Order’s first paragraph specifically referenced both of Mr. Loftis’s theories of relief, noting that “Mr. Loftis has filed claims for false light invasion of privacy and defamation by implication or innuendo based on statements contained in a newspaper article attached to his Amended Complaint that was written by Jim Myers and published by the Tennessean.”

Next, Paragraph 3 of the Trial Court’s Order recited the legal standards that govern both defamation and false light claims, and it correctly noted that “there is significant and substantial overlap between false light and defamation.”

Thereafter, Paragraph 4 of the Trial Court’s Order applied the law to the facts of Mr. Loftis’s Amended Complaint. After so doing, the Court held that “the statements contained in the Tennessean article are not capable of conveying a defamatory meaning and that they do not give rise to liability as a matter of law.”

At this point Loftis is doing more than just wasting his own money. He's wasting his opponent's money. Considering he's going to be on the hook for both sets of legal fees, he really should have allowed the suit to peacefully expire when the lower court declared it dead.

Filed Under: defamation, false light, jim myers, nashville, randy rayburn, tom loftis

Judge Dumps Stupid Libel Suit Featuring A Man Suing A Third Party For Things A Journalist Said

from the no-band-aids-for-bruised-feelings dept

It only took a month for a court to dump a bogus defamation suit brought by someone who sued one person for things someone else said. Jim Myers wrote an article for The Tennessean discussing changes made to a culinary arts program. The former director of the program -- Thomas Loftis -- didn't like characterizations made in the article. For reasons known only to him and his lawyers, Loftis sued the new director of the culinary arts program, rather than the columnist or the paper that published his article.

The lawsuit is now dead, thanks to a swift, verbal ruling by the presiding judge. Following a couple of complaints and motions to dismiss, attorney Daniel Horowitz has secured a win for his client.

In his verbal ruling from the bench dismissing the lawsuit against Mr. Rayburn, Judge Jones noted that under Tennessee law, an allegedly defamatory statement must “be read as a person of ordinary intelligence would understand it in light of the surrounding circumstances.” Judge Jones also observed that whether a statement is capable of being understood as defamatory “is a question of law to be determined by the court.” Finding that Mr. Loftis’s Complaint could not satisfy these basic standards even at the motion to dismiss stage, Judge Jones dismissed Mr. Loftis’s lawsuit with prejudice and assessed him the costs of the litigation.

The only thing going for Loftis is the swift dismissal, which means he won't be out much in terms of legal fees. Whatever Loftis did end up paying for his own counsel can hardly be considered money well-spent. His lawsuit seemed to be motivated out of professional jealousy, rather than any sincere belief his reputation had been harmed. But that sort of personal issue shouldn't be allowed to make its way into court:

The legal system should not be used to litigate hurt feelings or to deter people from speaking to the media.

Despite multiple rewrites, Loftis' lawsuit never managed to tie the defendant -- the new arts director the Tennessean columnist considered to be a huge improvement over his predecessor -- to any actual defamation, much less any disparaging words that actually came out of the new culinary director's mouth.

The reply motion [PDF] by Rayburn is worth a read, simply because it hammers home just how objectively terrible this lawsuit is. Fortunately, the plaintiff wasn't given much of a chance to annoy the target of his bogus suit and certainly won't be leaving him in a worse financial situation.

Filed Under: free speech, jim myers, journalism, lawsuits, randy rayburn, slapp, thomas loftis