Plaintiff May Pursue Defamation Claim Against Radio Station Defendant

A federal district court will allow a plaintiff to maintain a defamation action against a local media personality and a former employer based on a statement that the plaintiff was fired from the station. However, the court ruled that other statements the defendant made concerning the plaintiff were “rhetorical hyberbole”, and therefore not actionable.

Plaintiff alleged that defendant’s statements, such as those that plaintiff was a “retard” and “captain back acne” were defamatory per se. However, said the court, “No reasonable person would understand statements that plaintiff is a “retard” or is “captain back acne” as being literal statements of fact, or as implying statements of fact about the plaintiff. These statements are ultimately immature name-calling.”

But with regard to statements that the plaintiff was fired from the station, rather than that he resigned, the court held that he had stated a case for defamation, and denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

“Plaintiff has asserted that the statements that he was fired are false….This is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss because all facts are to be construed in his favor….Therefore, so long as plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the statements are flase, the Court will assume this to be the case. Defendant claims that his statements that plaintiff was fired are true….However, defendant’s attemtps to reference dictionary definitions of “fired” and “terminated” to prove this assertion do not make it so. Plaintiff’s denial is sufficient to survive this motion to dismiss.”

The court also found that the defendant asserted no privilege, and that the plaintiff asserted facts, which “if true, would be sufficient to show actual malice on the part of defendant.”

The court also refused, as defendant requested, that plaintiff be required to plead special damages. “Defendant also claims that plaintiff’s failure to plead with specificity is fatal. However, there is a big difference between pleading special damages and proving special damages. This Court refuses to require plaintiff to supply proof of special damages to survive a motion to dismiss. According to Georgia law, the amount and specifics of the damage and causation are matters of proof.”

The case is No Witness LLC v. Cumulus Media Partners, 2007 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 83761, 2007 WL 4139399 (N.D. Ga.). Read the entire opinion here.