In 1980, with a newfound drive and outlook on life, he founded Del Frisco's Double Eagle Steakhouse and sold it in 1995 for . Although actual malice focuses on the defendant's state of mind, a plaintiff can prove it through objective evidence about the publication's circumstances. He stated that "the final result was truthful, accurate, and a fair representation of the reporter's research." The Article also describes numerous disputes former business partners had with Wamstad, many of which resulted in lawsuits. Having negated an essential element of Wamstad's cause of action, Defendant-Appellants are entitled to summary judgment. 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. Id. We reject this argument, just as the court in Huckabee did. We disagree. In deciding whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, we take evidence favorable to the non-movant as true; we indulge every reasonable inference, and resolve any doubt, in favor of the non-movant. 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. 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. Doubleday Co., Inc. v. Rogers, 674 S.W.2d 751, 756 (Tex. Civ. Certain Defendant-Appellants filed no-evidence motions for summary judgment under rule 166a(i), which we need not address because we dispose of all issues based on Defendants' traditional motions for summary judgment under rule 166a(c). Three employees of the Observer-reporter Mark Stuertz, managing editor Patrick Williams, and editor Julie Lyons-each submitted an affidavit denying actual malice. 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. 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. 5 Times The Dallas Stars Went for the Gut While Trolling Opponents, Spoon + Fork: A Standard Name for a Not-So-Standard Restaurant, Chai Wallah in Plano Serves 9 Different Types of Chai, Toast to Mom: Where to Celebrate Mothers Day in Style, Mister O1 Pizza Opening Second Location in Grapevine, In Which Some Visitors From Paris Take a Food Tour of North Texas. 1985). ." Casso, 776 S.W.2d at 558. 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. 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. Even if Williams was not joking when he stated the draft article was libelous as written, it is irrelevant whether Williams himself or someone else edited the Article before publication; Williams unequivocally testifies in his affidavit that the Article as published did not contain statements he believed were false or about which he entertained doubts. Dark and sexy, this is the perfect place to pop the question over a porterhouse. 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. By publishing your views you invite public criticism and rebuttal; you enter voluntarily into one of the submarkets of ideas and opinions and consent therefore to the rough competition in the marketplace. Id. ), In the mid-1990s, the press began referring to Wamstad as flamboyant and controversial. 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. In 1996, the Dallas press noted that Wamstad was known for getting embroiled in legal battles with former business partners and rival steakhouse chains. And the evidence shows that Wamstad used his access to the media to comment on his rivals and his business disputes. 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. Huckabee v. Time Warner Enter. 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. 00-02758-C, Gary Hall, J. J. Michael Tibbals, Joseph A. Barbknecht, J. Brantley Saunders, The Barbknecht Firm, P.C., David G. Allen, Stacy Conder, L.L.P., Charles L. Babock, Jim (James) McCown, Jackson Walker, LLP, Dallas, for appellants. In 1995, Wamstad's business and personal reputation gained national press attention when he sued Ruth Fertel for defamation over her suggestion that Wamstad was behind the "Top Ten List." Finally, Wamstad argues he raises a fact question on actual malice based on deposition testimony of Williams and Lyons. In 1996, the Dallas press noted that Wamstad was "known for getting embroiled in legal battles with former business partners and rival steakhouse chains." Wamstad's role was both central and germane to the controversy about his contentious relationships. She had no knowledge at any time that the Article or any statements in it were false and did not at any time entertain doubts as to the truth of the statements. We disagree that no "public" controversy existed. 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 used in the defamation context, actual malice is different from traditional common-law malice; it does not include ill will, spite or evil motive. See Howell v. Hecht, 821 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, writ denied) (concluding similar language negated actual malice). Wamstad's role was both central and germane to the controversy about his contentious relationships. The guy is a warrior of. Once the defendant has produced evidence negating actual malice as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to present controverting proof raising a genuine issue of material fact. 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. WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex.1998). "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.'" "To determine whether a controversy existed, and, if so, to define its contours, the judge must examine whether persons actually were discussing some specific question." Former Fish chef Chris Svalesen countersued his ex-Fish Partner Steven Upright last month in the latest installment of their ongoing ownership battle in the successful downtown seafood restaurant. Id. The divorce court thus disagreed with the trial court's determination, in the previous criminal trial, that Rumore acted in self-defense. 5. The actor . But in determining whether a "public controversy" exists, we look to whether the public actually is discussing a matter, not whether the content of the discussion is important to public life. 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). Roy Wamstad describes specific incidents in which he asserts his father physically and emotionally abused him. Wamstad also points to the divorce court's judgment granting Wamstad a separation from Rumore on the grounds of attempted murder. Each Defendant filed a traditional motion for summary judgment under rule 166a(c) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The divorce court thus disagreed with the trial court's determination, in the previous criminal trial, that Rumore acted in self-defense. 166a(c). Huckabee, 19 S.W.3d at 427. Each Individual Defendant submitted an affidavit testifying that his or her Statements were not made with actual malice, e.g., denying any subjective belief or knowledge that his or her Statements were false, and denying having any serious doubts as to their truth. Dale Wamstad, also known as "Del Frisco," is the sole founder of two iconic, nationally recognized steakhouses. 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. 51.014(6) (Vernon Supp.2003). The managing editor had stated to her that virtually all of the information, even that conveyed in interviews with Rumore and Roy Wamstad, was corroborated by other sources or documents. Wamstad reproduced the list in his advertising, particularly in airline magazines, reportedly with great success. 7. 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. 973 F.2d 1263, 1270-71 (5th Cir. The AP article was picked up by numerous Texas newspapers, as well as newspapers in Charleston, Fort Lauderdale, Chicago, Baton Rouge, and Phoenix. 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. Fertel suggested, in a newsletter to her customers, that the Top-Ten List was a front for Del Frisco's. from 10 a.m.-2 p.m. 972-664-9975 (Texas restaurant) RELATED STORIES The restaurant is the latest culinary project by restaurateur Dale Wamstad. 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. Wamstad's Dallas Del Frisco's restaurant regularly appeared near the top of the "Knife and Fork Club of America's" top-ten list of steakhouses in the country ("Top-Ten List"). The two were inevitably linked, particularly because reports by others contrasted significantly with the family-man persona Wamstad persistently projected in his advertising. 2003). 6. Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 571, 590-96 (Tex. Code Ann. (citing Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 351 (1974)). In Wilson, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's determination that the libel plaintiff adduced "insufficient evidence of 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). 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. Cos., 684 F. Supp. The failure to investigate has been held insufficient to establish actual malice. (quoting St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968)). Wamstad's ex-wife, Lena Rumore, describes alleged incidents of Wamstad's physical abuse of her, her shooting of Wamstad in 1985, and the ensuing trial in which she was acquitted based on self-defense. Wamstad opened III Forks in August 1998 and sold it in July 2000. Id. 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." One article in the New Orleans Times-Picayune, entitled "Wounded husband called "a raging bull,'" quoted testimony from the trial of at least three witnesses who described instances they witnessed of Wamstad's physical abuse of Rumore before the shooting. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order insofar as it denies their motions for summary judgment and render judgment in favor of all Appellants. 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. Wamstad opened III Forks in August 1998 and sold it in July 2000. 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. The Texas Supreme Court has recently addressed the issue of what type of evidence is probative of actual malice in a case involving media defendants. 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. Accordingly, this is not a case where a defamation plaintiff was thrust into the public eye and involuntarily remained there. The Honorable Sue Lagarde, Justice, Court of Appeals, Fifth District of Texas at Dallas, Retired, sitting by assignment. See Brueggemeyer, 684 F. Supp. Rumore filed suit following the sale, claiming she was duped out of her share of the proceeds generated by the restaurant they founded and then developed in New Orleans in the early 1980s. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 573 (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 283 (1964)). In an advertisement in the Dallas Morning News, Wamstad reportedly blasted Chamberlain for picking on Dee Lincoln, Wamstad's former partner and current manager of a Del Frisco's restaurant.9 Chamberlain expressed the view that Wamstad wanted to create some publicity for his new steakhouse and was doing it at the expense of Chamberlain's reputation. . The Casso court went on to explain that the plaintiff must offer, at trial, clear and convincing affirmative proof of actual malice. The failure to investigate has been held insufficient to establish actual malice. Sometime after the opening, the Dallas Business Journal and the Observer covered yet another of Wamstad's business disputes-again focusing on the personal aspects of the dispute-this time with rival steakhouse-owner Richard Chamberlain. 1984). Tex. (quoting Dilworth v. Dudley, 75 F.3d 307, 309 (7th Cir.1996)). v. Wechter for the proposition that, when the truth or falsity of a statement is within the particular purview of the defamation defendant, then falsity is probative of malice. (quoting St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731, 88 S.Ct. In sum, the media coverage of Wamstad over the past 15-plus years has been substantial and considerably focused on Wamstad's personality, with Wamstad himself participating in the media discussion. Id., (citing Trotter v. Jack Anderson Enters., Inc., 818 F.2d 431, 433 (5th Cir.1987)). Indulging all inferences in Wamstad's favor, nonetheless, the Statements in the Article were not inherently improbable or based on obviously dubious information. As to Rumore, Wamstad relies on additional evidence, including evidence of a polygraph he purportedly passed, refuting Rumore's allegations of abuse. Wamstad countered that Rumore's claims were groundless because she signed a settlement agreement in 1992 that paid her $45,000. "General-purpose" public figures are those individuals who have achieved such pervasive fame or notoriety that they become public figures for all purposes and in all contexts. Grease will kill you.Dale: That's right, Shelby Rose And Dale and Shelby Rose, thanks for helping me out today. 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. See Bentley, 94 S.W.3d at 596. 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. . Wamstad also sued Rumore, Saba, and Sands (collectively, Individual Defendants). Thus, the issue of credibility does not preclude summary judgment on the issue of actual malice. Wamstad himself perpetuated the public nature of the debate over his contentious relationships through his personal self-promotion in his advertising and his other interactions with the press-with all their attendant ramifications for the opinion-forming, consuming public. Whether a party is a public figure is a question of constitutional law for courts to decide. Through his promotion of his family-man image in his advertising over the years, Wamstad voluntarily sought public attention, at the very least for the purpose of influencing the consuming public. Dee Lincoln took the reins from Dale Wamstad and kicked up the charm. San Antonio Exp. Thereafter, Wamstad married again, and began operating Del Frisco's restaurants in Dallas. We conclude that evidence is merely cumulative of Wamstad's testimony asserting Rumore's allegations are false. It is not enough for the jury to disbelieve the libel defendant's testimony. He argues that the challenged Statements do not concern the previous controversy over the Top-Ten List and his previous marital difficulties and his participation in business-related litigation are personal disputes and do not constitute a public controversy. 683 S.W.2d 369, 374-75 (Tex.1984). But in determining whether a public controversy exists, we look to whether the public actually is discussing a matter, not whether the content of the discussion is important to public life. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. Even if Williams was not joking when he stated the draft article was libelous as written, it is irrelevant whether Williams himself or someone else edited the Article before publication; Williams unequivocally testifies in his affidavit that the Article as published did not contain statements he believed were false or about which he entertained doubts. 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. She created the high-end wine, martini and champagne lounge with the Cowboys, Legends Hospitality Management and her brother, Ricky Comardelle. Wamstad sued New Times, Inc. d/b/a Dallas Observer (the Observer) and Mark Stuertz, the reporter (collectively, Media Defendants). 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. at 466. He had no knowledge indicating that the Article or statements therein were false at the time the Article was published nor did he entertain any doubts as to the truthfulness of any of the matters asserted in the Article. 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). The family he abandoned in New Orleans has a bone to pick with that. The Article is largely a recounting of various interactions with Wamstad as told by his ex-wife, his first-born son Roy, and some of Wamstad's former business associates. In context, the import of the statement in Casso is that, as to actual malice, the issue of credibility does not preclude summary judgment: If the credibility of the affiant or deponent is likely to be a dispositive factor in the resolution of the case, then summary judgment is inappropriate. at 455 (ongoing alleged "bait and switch" sales practices); and McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 569 (why government raid failed). 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." 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. 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.
Christy Funeral Home Obituaries,
Bbc Escape To The Country Presenter Dies,
Articles D