San Antonio Exp. TX Court of Appeals Opinions and Cases | FindLaw Roy Wamstad describes specific incidents in which he asserts his father physically and emotionally abused him. That is, he argues, the Article does not involve the types of controversies found in public-figure cases such as Trotter, 818 F.2d at 434-35 (union official assassination and labor violence in foreign country); Brueggemeyer, 684 F.Supp. 1992). Legal Principles Governing Defamation and Public-Figure Status. 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. Lena Rumore, ex-wife of Dallas steakhouse mogul Dale Wamstad (III Forks, Del Frisco's), will get a shot at the skillful restaurateur's beefy wallet. Although at trial the libel plaintiff must establish actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, at the summary judgment stage the court applies the traditional summary-judgment jurisprudence in testing whether the evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact. at 423. Rumore contends Del Frisco's sale to publicly traded Lone Star unleashed the public filing of records with the Securities and Exchange Commission, revealing the true value and ownership structure of the Del Frisco's steak empire. Accordingly, we reverse and render judgment for all Appellants. He stated that he had no knowledge that the Article or any statements in it were false at the time the Article was published, and at no time did he entertain any doubts as to the truth of the statements made in the Article. Restaurateur Dale Wamstad has sold the 83,000-square-foot retail and office development in Richardson to a local group formed by Huey Investments and Standridge Companies. . As noted, falsity alone does not raise a fact question on actual malice. The two were inevitably linked, particularly because reports by others contrasted significantly with the family-man persona Wamstad persistently projected in his advertising. Id. That Court noted the mere fact that a libel defendant knows that the libel plaintiff denies an allegation is not evidence that the defendant doubted the allegation. 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." We disagree. In actual-malice cases, such affidavits must establish the defendant's belief in the challenged statements' truth and provide a plausible basis for this belief. The feud reportedly began in 1981 when Wamstad claimed Fertel's son had slipped her recipes to him. 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. The supreme court has adopted the Fifth Circuit's three-part test for a limited-purpose public figure: (1)the controversy at issue must be public both in the sense that people are discussing it and people other than the immediate participants in the controversy are likely to feel the impact of its resolution; (2)the plaintiff must have more than a trivial or tangential role in the controversy; and. Wilson was not a public-figure case, that court applied federal procedural standards, and in a cryptic discussion it used the general term malice, giving no indication it was applying the constitutional actual malice standard that we must apply here. Independent evidence is required: Id. See Gertz, 418 U.S. at 346, 94 S.Ct. Accordingly, we reverse and render judgment for all Appellants. As to Rumore, Wamstad relies on additional evidence, including evidence of a polygraph he purportedly passed, refuting Rumore's allegations of abuse. All Defendants brought motions for summary judgment, which the trial court denied, and all Defendants brought this interlocutory appeal. Please try again. Actual Malice and Burdens of Proof on Summary Judgment. The case is expected to go to trial this summer. North Dallas steakhouse gets locked out and relocates to Frisco And when he wished to, he participated in the debate by using his media access to propound his point of view. r. Civ. A public-figure libel plaintiff must prove the defendant acted with actual malice in allegedly defaming him. 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. She alleged Wamstad had defrauded her with respect to her earlier property settlement, in 1992, for $45,000. at 573-74 (quoting New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279-80). at 466. Mgmt. The two were inevitably linked, particularly because reports by others contrasted significantly with the family-man persona Wamstad persistently projected in his advertising. Id., quoted approvingly in McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 572. Co. L.P., 19 S.W.3d 413, 420 (Tex.2000). Id. local news and culture. 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. He challenged nearly all of the statements in the Article as defamatory, as well as other statements the Individual Defendants allegedly made to Stuertz that did not appear in the Article (collectively, Statements). Id. We conclude that evidence is merely cumulative of Wamstad's testimony asserting Rumore's allegations are false. 973 F.2d 1263, 1270-71 (5th Cir.1992). Even after Rumore was acquitted based on self-defense, the New Orleans press continued to cover the couple's subsequent suits against each other, including Wamstad's suit in 1997 against Rumore for damages from shooting him and Rumore's subsequent countersuit for $5 million. Id. Wamstad countered that Rumore's claims were groundless because she signed a settlement agreement in 1992 that paid her $45,000. "Limited-purpose" public figures are only public figures for a limited range of issues surrounding a particular public controversy. We conclude that the affidavits contain ample evidence of a plausible basis for the Observer's employees to believe in the truth of the Statements as reported in the Article. 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.". Subsequently, in 1995, the press reported that Wamstad dropped the libel suit to facilitate his $23 million sale of Del Frisco's to a national chain. Wamstad named as defendants parties associated with the media as well as individuals. 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. Alan S. Loewinsohn, Loewinshn Flegle, L.L.P., Dallas, for appellee. DALLAS, April 16 /PRNewswire/ -- Dee Lincoln, known nationally as the "Queen of Steaks" for her role as one of the leading female businesswomen in the steakhouse industry, resigned from Del. "Actual malice is a term of art, focusing on the defamation defendant's attitude toward the truth of what it reported." In essence, he argues that falsity of the Statements is probative of actual malice. He challenged nearly all of the statements in the Article as defamatory, as well as other statements the Individual Defendants allegedly made to Stuertz that did not appear in the Article (collectively, "Statements"). 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. Join the Observer community and help support Wamstad relies on Leyendecker & Assocs. 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. After he sold his interest in Del Frisco's, Wamstad continued to use his "family values" to promote his new restaurant, III Forks, which he opened in 1998. 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. The Article also describes numerous disputes former business partners had with Wamstad, many of which resulted in lawsuits. Id. See Huckabee, 19 S.W.3d at 428-29 (extensive legal review with editorial rewrites not evidence of actual malice). Code Ann. Texas Monthly and at least one trade magazine covered the suit with Fertel, as did ABC World News Tonight. Lyons testified on deposition that Williams commented to her that the draft article was "libelous as hell, but it won't be when I'm through with it." Independent evidence is required: While it is conceivable that a defendant's trial testimony, under the rigors of cross-examination, could provide the requisite proof, it is more likely that plaintiff will have to secure that evidence elsewhere. "Actual malice is defined as the publication of a statement `with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.'" Hash Over | Restaurants | Dallas | Dallas Observer | The Leading Loads of folks around here admire Dale Wamstad's business sense. 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. Actual malice is defined as the publication of a statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Id. She alleges Wamstad created a "web of lies" to conceal the true ownership and value of Del Frisco's assets following their 1987 divorce. 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 marathon game had lasted 9 hours and 23 minutes. 8. The divorce court thus disagreed with the trial court's determination, in the previous criminal trial, that Rumore acted in self-defense. Whether a party is a public figure is a question of constitutional law for courts to decide. 496-705-1665. www.roostertownwafflery.com RELATED STORIES Having negated an essential element of Wamstad's cause of action, Defendant-Appellants are entitled to summary judgment. Wilson was not a public-figure case, that court applied federal procedural standards, and in a cryptic discussion it used the general term "malice," giving no indication it was applying the constitutional "actual malice" standard that we must apply here. Labour has taken 1.5million from a Just Stop Oil-backing green energy boss, it emerged yesterday. This case concerns a defamation suit brought by restaurateur Dale Wamstad after a detailed article about him appeared in the Dallas Observer. New Times v. Wamstad, 106 S.W.3d 916 | Casetext Search + Citator 1984). 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. Nixon v. Mr. A lower court agreed with Wamstad, but Rumore won on appeal. For example, at the time of the dispute with Piper, the Dallas press reported that Wamstad ran an advertisement stating, "I've done some stupid things in my life, but selling my steakhouse to my attorney has to top the list" and another one in which he accused Piper of running a "clone" restaurant. 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. Accordingly, Wamstad has failed to controvert the Media Defendants' negation of actual malice. Dracos, 922 S.W.2d at 255. During the Top-Ten List litigation, Wamstad referred in radio advertisements as having been accused by a New York public relations person (whom he had named as a defendant) as being "diabolically clever and successful.". We reject this argument, just as the court in Huckabee did. Concerning the first element, a general concern or interest does not constitute a controversy. Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1297. Even after Rumore was acquitted based on self-defense, the New Orleans press continued to cover the couple's subsequent suits against each other, including Wamstad's suit in 1997 against Rumore for damages from shooting him and Rumore's subsequent countersuit for $5 million.