Thus, that Wamstad and the divorce judge disagreed with Rumore's allegations is not evidence that the Media Defendants subjectively believed that Rumore's Statements, as they appeared in the Article, were false or that they entertained serious doubts about their truth. The Court summarized as follows: In a public-figure defamation case, a libel defendant is entitled to summary judgment under rule 166a(c) by negating actual malice as a matter of law. 973 F.2d 1263, 1270-71 (5th Cir.1992). Julie Lyons stated the following in her affidavit: She was aware of the numerous sources for the Article, including court documents and sworn court testimony. The record contains numerous advertisements containing pictures of Wamstad's new family and children; many advertisements contain his signature slogan "We're open six evenings. He discussed the extensive interviews, media reports, court documents and transcripts Stuertz used and the level of corroboration among the sources. Stuertz states in his affidavit that he had arranged an interview with Wamstad, but Wamstad later canceled it on advice of his attorney. Through the 1990s, Wamstad advertised in both print media and radio, using an image of himself as a family-man and folksy steakhouse owner to promote his restaurants. Updated 1:52 PM Jun 9, 2020 CDT. Concerning the first element, a general concern or interest does not constitute a controversy. Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1297. The judge ruled that she had acted in self-defense. Id. Leyendecker is inapposite; it involved a showing of common-law malice to support exemplary damages, not a showing of constitutional actual malice required of a public-figure plaintiff to establish defamation. When asked shortly thereafter about the comment, she stated she thought the statement was "partly in jest and partly reflected that he was still working on the story.". See Brueggemeyer, 684 F.Supp. The Four Sisters were trying to stare down Dale. To maintain a defamation cause of action, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant (1) published a statement (2) that was defamatory concerning the plaintiff (3) while acting with either actual malice, if the plaintiff was a public figure, or negligence, if the plaintiff was a private individual, regarding the truth of the statement. Wamstad sued New Times, Inc. d/b/a Dallas Observer (the Observer) and Mark Stuertz, the reporter (collectively, "Media Defendants"). For example, in 1995, the Dallas Morning News described Wamstad as "a colorful and controversial member of the Dallas restaurant scene since arriving from New Orleans in 1989." See Casso, 776 S.W.2d at 558 (citing New York Times, defining actual malice in public-figure case as term of art, different from the common-law definition of malice). . Grease will kill you.Dale: That's right, Shelby Rose And Dale and Shelby Rose, thanks for helping me out today. . The AP article quoted Fertel as telling Rumore after the shooting that if she fired that many shots at Wamstad and didn't get him, Fertel was going to have to give Rumore shooting lessons. Id. Casso v. Brand, 776 S.W.2d 551, 558 (Tex. Fertel's lawyer asserted he got Wamstad to admit to his connection with, and payments to, the publicist who created the list. In 1980, with a newfound drive and outlook on life, he founded Del Frisco's Double Eagle Steakhouse and sold it in 1995 for . The Court summarized as follows: The defendant's state of mind can-indeed, must usually-be proved by circumstantial evidence. The email address cannot be subscribed. r. Civ. 1984). Details on the shooting from the Dallas Observer: The purse on the sofa held the .25-caliber semiautomatic pistol her husband had given her two years earlier to protect herself when she closed the. Wamstad argues that at most only personal disputes are involved, that there is no public controversy in the sense that the public is affected by these disputes in any real way. As noted, falsity alone does not raise a fact question on actual malice. 1985). Id. He had no knowledge that the Article or any statements in it were false and at no time did he entertain any doubts as to the truth of the statements in the Article. All Defendants sought summary judgment, which the trial court denied, and all Defendants appealed. On the other hand, if the non-movant must, in all likelihood, come forth with independent evidence to prevail, then summary judgment may well be proper in the absence of such controverting proof. Co. L.P., 19 S.W.3d 413, 420 (Tex.2000). 1984) (reckless conduct not measured by whether reasonably prudent person would have investigated before publishing; must show defendant entertained serious doubts as to truth of publication, citing St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 731, 733); El Paso Times, Inc. v. Trexler, 447 S.W.2d 403, 405-06 (Tex. Id. Our review of the record shows that after Williams was deposed, he testified by affidavit, stating that he went over at least two drafts of the Article with Stuertz, who answered all of his questions, and that the Article went through the standard, detailed process for editing and revision. Wamstad asserts Stuertz mentioned Rumore's pending lawsuit to him but did not tell him he planned to cover Wamstad's business dealings as well. 1992). The article also stated that son Roy Wamstad recounted at least eleven separate instances in which he asserted Wamstad physically abused him and his mother. Although actual malice focuses on the defendant's state of mind, a plaintiff can prove it through objective evidence about the publication's circumstances. San Antonio Exp. That is, the judge's disagreement with Rumore's assertion of self-defense does not raise a fact question whether Rumore herself believed her Statement that she acted in self-defense was false. Although actual malice focuses on the defendant's state of mind, a plaintiff can prove it through objective evidence about the publication's circumstances. The record refers to Wamstad's involvement in at least ten restaurants since 1977 and contains court documents concerning legal disputes over at least four different restaurants, involving four different former associates. Prac. Wamstad asserts six categories of evidence that he contends controvert the Media Defendants' denial of actual malice: (1) the Media Defendants were on notice that Rumore's credibility was questioned by the divorce judge, who questioned her allegations of Wamstad's abuse and her claim that she shot Wamstad in self-defense; (2) in recounting her tale of life with Wamstad, Rumore stated sometimes I'm not sure what is a dream and what is real, but nonetheless, Stuertz admitted Rumore was his main source for the article; (3) the Observer was aware before it published the Article that Wamstad had passed a polygraph examination that contradicted Rumore's allegations of abuse; (4) Stuertz admitted he questioned the logic of Rumore's remarrying Wamstad despite her allegations of previous abuse; (5) Wamstad's media expert testified that the Observer's investigation was grossly inadequate; and (6) on deposition, editor Lyons testified that managing editor Williams stated the Article was libelous as hell, but it won't be when I'm through with it, and Williams testified he had no further personal involvement with the Article after that conversation. He went on to add that Piper was a piece of snot floating in the ocean.. Having negated an essential element of Wamstad's cause of action, Defendant-Appellants are entitled to summary judgment. 5251 Spring Valley Rd. Huckabee v. Time Warner Enter. However, leave Dee Lincoln and Del Frisco's . The contours of the controversy requirement are at least partly defined by the notion that public-figure status attaches to those who invite attention and comment because they have thrust themselves to the forefront of a public controversy to influence the resolution of the issue involved. Gertz, 418 U.S. at 345, 94 S.Ct. New York Times Co. v. Connor, 365 F.2d 567, 576 (5th Cir. She's a great lady Chamberlain was reportedly perplexed: his advertisement had not mentioned Lincoln by name, and he had used the same advertising concept for nearly five years, which was a list that compared Chamberlain's four-star listing with the three-and-a-half stars enjoyed by Del Frisco's and others, with the recent inclusion of III Forks on the lower-rated list. San Antonio Exp. 175 years later on November 8th, 2011 Tuesday night at 8:30 pm in a Texas Hold-em poker game, Dale Francis Wamstad went all in with The Four Sisters. We disagree. Id. We disagree. Wamstad argues that at most only personal disputes are involved, that there is no public controversy in the sense that the public is affected by these disputes in any real way. Wamstad is upping his bet that The Shire, with a "town village" design, will fill a need for a mixed-use project in Richardson. Neither do the actions of the Media Defendants evince a purposeful avoidance of the truth. For example, in the fall of 1989, the Dallas press carried at least four articles discussing the business-turned-legal dispute between Wamstad and Mike Piper, his former attorney, after Piper acquired a Del Frisco's restaurant from Wamstad. The record evidence shows that around the time Rumore was tried for shooting Wamstad, in 1986, he began to receive considerable press attention concerning his domestic life. Id. Furthermore, that Rumore confessed to confusion about past events, and that Stuertz thought her remarrying Wamstad was not logical, are not probative of whether Stuertz believed the Statements, as they appeared in the Article, were false. 496-705-1665. www.roostertownwafflery.com RELATED STORIES The divorce judge held that Rumore did not act in self-defense when shooting Wamstad, basing his decision on "discrepancies in Mrs. Wamstad's testimony, her overall lack of credibility and the Court's actual inspection of the premises. When It's Top-10-Steakhouse List, The Knives Are Out - The Seattle Times In Wilson, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's determination that the libel plaintiff adduced insufficient evidence of malice. We are not persuaded that Wilson should apply here. Accordingly, we reverse and render judgment for all Appellants. We conclude that evidence is merely cumulative of Wamstad's testimony asserting Rumore's allegations are false. In an extensive affidavit, Stuertz stated the following, among other things: In researching for the Article, he interviewed at least nineteen people, reviewed numerous court documents (listing fifty-seven documents), court transcripts, and numerous newspaper articles concerning Wamstad (listing forty-eight newspaper articles). (citing Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 351, 94 S.Ct. Beef isn't the only entre sparking legal brawls. We conclude that Williams' not recalling his next personal involvement with the Article does not contradict his later affidavit testimony that the Statements in the Article were not published with actual malice. We are not persuaded that Wilson should apply here. The Dallas Morning News also covered the story, quoting Piper's and Wamstad's personal comments about each other. Wamstad's first four categories of evidence, in essence, assert that the Media Defendants were on notice that Rumore's statements were false because Wamstad disagreed with Rumore (he allegedly passed a polygraph test) and a divorce judge disagreed with Rumore's assertion that she acted in self-defense when she shot Wamstad in 1985. In its edition dated March 16-22, 2000, the Dallas Observer published an article ("the Article") about Dale Wamstad, entitled, "Family Man," with the caption on the cover stating, "Dallas Restaurateur Dale Wamstad portrays himself as humble entrepreneur and devoted father. Wamstad responded that Piper was treacherous and mean-spirited for raising the shooting, adding that the shooting was all behind him, that he had remarried and had a wife and two beautiful kids.