Libel

Saying Someone "Just Likes to Talk a Lot" Is Not Defamatory

What? Is there something supposedly wrong with liking to talk a lot?

|

From Judge Denise Page Hood's opinion last Thursday in Cambridge Dental, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. (E.D. Mich.):

The facts according to Plaintiffs' Complaint are as follows…. Dr. Ruggirello is the sole member of the limited liability company Cambridge Dental…. Plaintiffs began working with Defendant in 2012.  Through the years, Plaintiffs [Cambridge Dental and Ruggirello] have worked with several of Defendant's employees in various capacities.

In late 2017, one of Defendant's employees, Brian Slatkin … persuaded Plaintiffs to deposit $50,000.00 in one of Defendant's accounts. Instead of depositing the $50,000 into Plaintiffs' account, Slatkin used the funds for his "personal endeavors." After repeated attempts to obtain a bank statement confirming the transaction, Slatkin provided Plaintiffs with a phony transaction history sheet.

In July 2019, another one of Defendant's employees, Clay Smith … had a conversation with an unrelated third party [Lori V] at an unrelated company…. During this conversation, Smith mentioned Slatkin's handling of Plaintiffs' $50,000 and specifically referenced Dr. Ruggirello.  In that same conversation, Smith exclaimed "well you know doctors and dentists have so much money they don't pay attention to their accounts."

After that remark, Lori explained that she actually knew the subject of the conversation—Dr. Ruggirello. Following this revelation, Smith abruptly ended the conversation and left. On this same occasion, another one of Defendant's employees, Steve Ball … told Lori "it sounds like your dentist friend just likes to talk a lot" and "it sounds like your dentist friend just likes to talk to anyone who will listen." Following Lori's conversation with Smith, Ball contacted Lori in September 2019, to investigate Smith's statements to Lori.

Plaintiffs now allege that the statements made by Defendant's representatives, Smith and Ball were defamatory statements about how Dr. Ruggirello handles his business affairs. Plaintiffs are seeking a retraction by Defendant about the alleged defamatory statements, compensatory damages equal to the amount of losses that Plaintiffs have and will sustain, and costs and attorney's fees….

Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs' Complaint relies entirely upon two "completely innocuous" statements, which do not reach the high threshold required to establish defamation or intentional infliction of emotional distress claims under Michigan law. Defendant argues that the two statements were "general opinion statements," which were at best, impolite, but otherwise did not meet the legal requirements for the alleged torts….

Defendant claims that Ball's statements were merely "rhetorical hyperbole." Courts have repeatedly found that certain statements, if taken in the proper context, are incapable of defamatory interpretation. Defendant contends that the instant case is one of those situations because Ball's statements was "obviously" an expression of Ball's opinion about Dr. Ruggirello and not an actual fact. Here, Ball allegedly remarked that "it sounds like your dentist friend just likes to talk to anyone who will listen." …

The Court finds that neither Smith nor Ball's alleged statements rise to the level of defamation [or intentional infliction of emotional distress] ….

Uh, yes. As usual, the big winner: the lawyers.

NEXT: Cambridge University Has "Strongly Rejected Guidelines Requiring Opinions to Be 'Respectful'"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I like how this order is all "oh yeah, the bank has a history of unprofessionalism with this guy. Here's a one paragraph anecdote about how an employee stole $50k from him, lol".

    Which is to say... he may or may not talk too much, but he probably should have changed to a different bank before 2019.

    1. Where do you get "the bank has a history of unprofessionalism", when the rest of your quote is "an employee [of the defendant] stole $50k from him"?

      I'd love to know more about that $50K, but there's nothing indicating any bank did anything wrong.

      1. From "an employee stole $50k from him".

        If I drop my car off at the auto-shop, and one of the mechanics steals it, I'm not taking any future car back to the auto-shop, no matter how much the boss swears up-down-left-and-right that it was a rogue employee.

        Since when is "the buck stops at the top" controversial?

      2. "there’s nothing indicating any bank did anything wrong

        Respondeat Superior?

  2. "Instead of depositing the $50,000 into Plaintiffs' account, Slatkin used the funds for his "personal endeavors."

    Isn't that also a breach of a fiduciary duty on the part of the bank?

    "After repeated attempts to obtain a bank statement confirming the transaction, Slatkin provided Plaintiffs with a phony transaction history sheet....[A]nother one of Defendant's employees, Clay Smith ….. mentioned Slatkin's handling of Plaintiffs' $50,000 and specifically referenced Dr. Ruggirello."

    So one of the bank's employees (a) stole $50K and (b) forged bank documents, a second employee knew of this and instead of reporting it, bragged about it to someone else, and then a third employee proceeded to address the situation by blaming the victim.

    I can't imagine that the Bank Examiners would be particularly impressed by any of this. And wouldn't "breach of fiduciary duty" have been a better tort to pursue? Just wondering...

    (Personally, I'd think this a public relations disaster for Chase Bank, but I digress...)

    1. Not a bank employee. Defendant is the dentist, I believe.

      one of Defendant's employees, Brian Slatkin … persuaded Plaintiffs to deposit $50,000.00 in one of Defendant's accounts. Instead of depositing the $50,000 into Plaintiffs' account, Slatkin used the funds for his "personal endeavors." After repeated attempts to obtain a bank statement confirming the transaction, Slatkin provided Plaintiffs with a phony transaction history sheet.

      1. Defendant is listed as: JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.

    2. My guess is that the issue of the $50k has already been resolved one way or the other, and that this incident is just about the bad-mouthing.

      But yeah, the way the order leads with this Slatkin/$50k incident and then segues into "and then a different employee complained about the dentist over it" and treats that like it's the big issue is... jarring.

    3. Isn’t that also a breach of a fiduciary duty on the part of the bank?

      No.

  3. "Uh, yes. As usual, the big winner: the lawyers."

    Uh yes, the trial lawyer's credo for stupid plaintiffs: "I am willing to take this case all the way even if it takes every last dollar you got"

  4. I definitely like to talk, so I'll say that Pfizer knew full well about the potential for allergic reaction to their vaccine: https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download (which is dated _tomorrow_, 10-Dec-2020 ).

Please to post comments