Where a plaintiff law firm has brought suit over comments the defendants posted on a Facebook group page, the plaintiff’s defamation claim must be dismissed because the statements are contextually presented as opinions rather than as stating facts, neither statement qualifies as defamation per se and the plaintiff has not alleged “special harm” resulting from the publication of the statements.
“Plaintiff Lento Law Group, P.C., a law firm, is suing five Flint residents for comments they posted on the Flint Politics Facebook group page. Defendants Ladel Lewis and Linda Ann Pohly have filed motions to dismiss the claims against them pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
“Plaintiff's claim against Pohly is based upon her statement in response to the question ‘So is the Lento Group attending Flint Council meetings looking for ways to set themselves the ability to sue the city?’ Pohly responded, ‘yes, that is why they are there.’ Plaintiff argues that the accusation that they are ‘looking to ways’ to sue the city is defamatory. The court disagrees. Based upon the forum (Facebook) and the context of the discussion, it is clear that Pohly is merely expressing an opinion, rather than a provable fact. Statements of opinion are incapable of defamatory meaning and are not actionable.
“Similarly, Plaintiff's defamation claim against Lewis is based upon her Facebook post of a photo of two council members wearing Lento Law shirts. Lewis suggested that the shirts were ‘gifts’ from Lento and questioned whether Lento was influencing the council members' votes: ‘According to the 6 th Ward's post defining gifts, it appears that these fancy personalized Lento shirts qualify. Were they more than $25? Can you represent the city and the law firm in litigation with the city at the same time? Is that affecting their votes? Is this why they are not voting to give the residents ARPA dollars? Looks like they are more loyal to Lento than the residents of the City of Flint.’ Plaintiff argues that the ‘only reasonable implication’ of this post is that Lento ‘engages in bribing members of the Flint City Council.’ However, viewing the post as a whole, Lewis is providing her interpretation of a photo and statutes prohibiting gifts, while criticizing the ethics of fellow council members. This type of ‘personal interpretation of the available information constitutes ... opinion, and this opinion is not actionable as defamation.’
“Moreover, Lewis's assumption that Lento gifted shirts to council members cannot reasonably interpreted as an actual accusation of bribery, which requires corrupt intent. The suggestion that a council member could be bribed by a free polo shirt falls into the category of ‘rhetorical hyperbole,’ ‘meant to express strong disapproval rather than an accusation of criminal activity or actual misconduct.’ Because Lewis's statements cannot be interpreted as an actual accusation of a crime, Plaintiff has not stated a claim for defamation per se.
“To plead a defamation claim, Plaintiff must allege a ‘defamatory statement’ and ‘either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm (defamation per se) or the existence of special harm caused by publication.’ Pohly and Lewis's statements are contextually presented as opinions rather than as stating facts, and neither statement qualifies as defamation per se . In addition, Plaintiff has not alleged ‘special harm’ resulting from the publication of these statements. For these reasons, Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege all of the required elements of a defamation claim against either Pohly or Lewis.”
Lento Law Group PC v. Lewis; MiLW 02-108142, 10 pages; U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; Caram Steeh, J.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion.
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0