Judge Tosses Defamation Case Of The Sleepy Yankees Fan

from the zzzzzzzzz dept

Last year, we discussed the silly defamation case brought by Andrew Rector, baseball fan(?), that ESPN's cameras showed to be sleeping(!) at a Red Sox v. Yankees game. The commentators on ESPN had some fun at Andrew's expense. Quite mild and tame fun, it should be noted. But several websites picked up where they left off, and some comments left on those websites were less than friendly to Rector. For this, Rector filed a $10 million defamation suit against ESPN and the commentators, John Kruk and Dan Shulman. It looked bad on the basis of both the law, as well as the ability of whoever filed the suit to use a spellchecker and basic logic.

And now the courts have agreed, with a NYC judge dismissing the lawsuit.

While Rector’s lawsuit alleged that he was subjected to an “unending verbal crusade” by the ESPN duo, the assorted putdowns referred to in the complaint actually appeared in the comment sections of online articles about Rector nodding off during the game. Two comments cited in the lawsuit referred to Rector as a “fatty cow that needs two seats” and a “confused disgusted and socially bankrupt individual.”

In a decision issued last month, Judge Julia Rodriguez ruled that Shulman and Kruk made none of the nasty comments attributed to them in Rector’s complaint, adding that “none of the comments actually made by the announcers” was defamatory or false. Rodriguez added that, “At worst, the announcers’ comments might be considered to be loose, figurative or hyperbolic statements which are not actionable.”

Which, you know, duh. The idea that a person might snooze in a public venue where a telecast is occurring and then get upset because third parties saw footage of him sleeping is a logical bungle to begin with, but adding the money-grab feel of a multi-million dollar defamation suit against people who never said the things the suer is upset about represents such twisted brain-pretzels that it's actually hard for me to think about. Not every offense is actionable, after all, and the civil courts are not the place to rectify embarrassment in this way. The nature of the claim in Rector's original filing probably didn't help his cause, either.

Rector, a used car salesman, claimed in a court affidavit filed earlier this year that the ESPN broadcast--which he termed “bullying”--caused “enormous grief and embarrassment and affected my ability to work and go about my daily activity.” He added that, “people have avoided dealing with me. Insurance companies now consider me a high risk.”

And he thought the best way to move past all of this supposed damage was to ensure his name remained in the spotlight with a lawsuit? C'mon, son.

Filed Under: baseball, defamation, fans, sleeping
Companies: espn

Man Falls Asleep At MLB Game, Sues MLB For $10 Million For Noticing

from the napping-for-fun-and-profit dept

Defamation laws can be a tricky thing. Public figures, for instance, can sometimes have a tough time navigating when the law doesn't apply, while the more crazy but less famous folks of the world seem to occasionally forget that truth is a defense against defamation. Add to them the times when entire organizations forget that parody exists and is protected speech and suddenly you begin wondering whether anyone ever gets a defamation suit right.

Well, if they do, it sure ain't Andrew Robert Rector, part-time baseball fan and full-time misguided-lawsuit-filer. See, Andrew fell asleep at a Yankees/Red Sox game, and ESPN's cameras caught him snoozing. Now Andrew is suing roughly everyone for ten million dollars. Confused? You're not the only one. The at times hard to understand filing appears to be relatively unconcerned with facts, you see.

Rector claims he was filmed, and defamed, at the April 13 game between the Yankees and Red Sox, at Yankee Stadium.

"In the course of watching the game plaintiff napped and this opened unending verbal crusade against the napping plaintiff," the complaint states. ESPN focused its cameras on him, Rector says, and then "Announcers like Dan Shulman and John Kruck unleashed avalanche of disparaging words against the person of and concerning the plaintiff. These words, include but not limited to 'stupor, fatty, unintelligent, stupid' knowing and intending the same to be heard and listened to by millions of people all over the world ..."

Except, other than the camera noticing the dozing fan, none of the other accusations are even remotely accurate. For the millionth time, I find myself thanking the universe for MLB's Advanced Media, which provides video of the entire episode during the broadcast. Like I said, the complaint isn't even close to being true. The specific allegations of what the announcers said are simply wrong. They never said those things. On top of that, the complaint appears to be written by someone that needs remedial English classes, because sections of it border on incomprehensible. It even gets the names of the announcers wrong.

John Kruck [sic] in his verbal attack insinuated that the plaintiff is individual that know neither history nor understood the beauty or rivalry between Boston Red Sox and New York Yankee [sic].

And:

Plaintiff alleges that MLB.com, juxtapositions of photos and text of two men kissing each other and caption "sleeping Yankee's Fan cares not for your rivalry talk" falsely implied that plaintiff engaged in that type of conduct described or portrayed by the picture. In light of all the surrounding circumstances.

Now, that particular passage had me monumentally confused, until I read Deadspin's post about this whole situation. They're postulating that Andrew and/or his lawyers appear to be mistaking a third party for ESPN, which is about as shocking as the sun rising in the east.

That completely nonsensical paragraph seems to be referring to this blog post on NotSportsCenter.com, which has nothing to do with MLB or ESPN. But anyway, Andrew Rector wants everyone to know that he's totally not gay, bro. Stupid, maybe, but totally not gay.

Whoo-boy. In other words, in sum total, it's difficult to imagine how Andrew Rector and whatever crackerjack legal team he has hired could have screwed this up any worse. Probably best at this point to drop the whole thing and go away, particularly considering how the lawsuit has now streisanded this story and far more people are witnessing the plaintiff's actions than ever would have otherwise.

Filed Under: andrew rector, andrew robert rector, defamation, mlb, sleeping
Companies: mlb