The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
#TheyLied Libel Lawsuit by Toronto Raptors Lead Assistant Coach Adrian Griffin Against Ex-Wife
An interesting example of the recent spate of such lawsuits, just filed today, in Griffin v. Sterling (S.D.N.Y.). The heart of the claim:
2. Plaintiff Adrian Griffin brings this libel action as the victim of a vicious campaign of lies by the Defendant, his ex-wife, Audrey R. Sterling. The subject attack was launched by a Tweet on August 13, 2020, in which Defendant falsely accused Plaintiff of failure to pay child support and vivid accusations of horrifying physical abuse by Plaintiff. These were all lies, completely fabricated to take advantage of the current online climate where a woman's unsupported accusation would be inherently believed, no matter how false or far-fetched. In today's lost cancel culture, where angry mobs patrol the bowels of social media ready to pounce, an accusation, with or without evidence, is the equivalent of a conviction. Sterling knew her accusations to be false. She made them anyway, and persisted in making them, until her thirst for blood was quenched.
3. Defendant's primary purpose soon revealed itself, however. As her former NBA player husband, now a highly regarded lead assistant coach, developed into an exceptional candidate for multiple head coaching positions in the NBA in recent years, Sterling wanted her piece of the pie. She would use whatever she could get away with to get it. Either that or she would destroy him, knowing no one would challenge her lies about an athlete's alleged abuses.
As always, I can't speak to who's telling the truth here.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Marriage is such a beautiful institution…I’m so glad same sex couples now have the right to employ divorce lawyers.
Ok....now that was hilarious. 🙂
Again, thick headed Volokh does not get it. We know almost allegations between people who know each are false. This is especially true of allegations by feminist hooers. However, none of that matters. Assume people do not know the truth, and can never find it.
Where is the damage from? It is from people who act on these allegations, employers, churches, clubs, family members shunning, the police, prosecutors. There is no damage from allegations. There is damage from careless acts based on those allegations. Sue these feminist believing scumbags for their carelessness and the resulting injury to the plaintiff. Volokh cannot grasp this reality. The field of defamation is in utter failure as a result of the denial of reality.
Sebastian. I have begged my homosexual friends to avoid that lawyer trap. It was not a homosexual idea. The lawyer profession destroyed the family. Only a suicidal fool would get married if productive today. The bastardy rate is soaring, not just in diverses, but in whites. The Family Law business was suffering. The lawyer came up with this lawyer scheme to plunder the assets of the above average wealthy homosexuals.
I am pleased to say, only the tiniest fraction of homosexuals have fallen into this trap, even in progressive countries of Europe. They are not stupid. Only 6 of a 1000 have been too stupid to see the trap. Compare to half of het people being married.
People can get married—they just need to spend more time planning a prenup than the wedding. And once you have a child with another person family courts can get involved regardless of marital status so not getting married doesn’t solve that issue.
SC....That is so true = ...spend more time planning a prenup than the wedding
I told that to my sons (they are bachelors). They looked at me like I was a cyclops or something. It is very hard to get younger people to understand the importance of legally protecting your assets.
Maybe you are a cyclops. How's your depth perception?
Wonder if we’ll see something similar by the hockey player against his soon-to-be-ex wife who went and told the world (including the NHL) that her husband was betting on, and even throwing, hockey games, and that he was overall a despicable husband, father, and human being. (Or maybe it’s all true.)
I never liked Evander Kane and thus my gut says he is as bad as she says he is. I am very often inclined to give the man the benefit of the doubt (but without outright believing him "just because"). But in this case... Injust can't do it.
Maybe he is innocent. I am open to that. But his case wouldn't surprise me. And my wofe who broke the story to me (she is a bigger off-season hockey fan than me so she keeps up with all this stuff) told me, IIRC, that the wife also published emails containing info regarding his gambling debts.
Glad to see social media is being used so productively. Amoral billionaires making off with gobs of cash, while society just keeps breaking down from the rust of social corrosion imparted by everyones backbiting and hot takes.
As wonderful as the Internet is, I sometimes wonder if we wouldn't have been better off with it never invented. No Russian and Chinese hacking. No facebook, twitter, or other corrosive social media. No ransomware attacks. A far smaller audience for conspiracy theories. Probably no Trump presidency and certainly no January 6 Capitol riot. I suppose as with anything else it's a mixed bag.
Interesting link.
Not as interesting as the motivation for choosing this from the thousands of complaints and dozens of defamation complaints filed today, though.
That purple prose puts the over-under on the size of the plaintiff's law firm at 2.5. Would a lawyer with a fiduciary duty to partners, or a firm that relies on a strong reputation, file such TMZ-level prose? If the complaint alleged facts supporting some of the grandiose allegations, this excerpt omits those allegations.
Yes, they would file it. Since the Twombly and Iqbal cases, the old idea and paradigm of notice pleading is mostly obsolete. Under that rubric a complaint was deemed sufficient if it recited the essential elements of the various causes of action. Some parts of the complaint were required to be pleaded with specificity, such as allegations of fraud (what constituted the fraud) and, of course, the actual statement alleged to be defamatory. Since those cases, "Fact" pleading has taken hold, wherein the whole of the factual complex surrounding the essential elements is required to be recited. This is because under the "new" law announced in those cases, the trial judge is required to determine whether the factual complex stated in the complaint is "plausible" or states a plausible claim for relief, not just whether it states the essential elements of the cause of action.
This, then, leads to attorneys throwing into the complaint every possible fact they have (or believe to exist), so they cannot be blamed in the event the trial judge decides the complaint is not "plausible" or does not state a plausible claim for relief. Along with this kitchen sink approach, they go shopping in the purple aisle of The Adjective Store like it's a BOGO sale, to show just how evil the defendant's conduct was.
Yes, this whole idea of the trial judge deciding at the very outset of a case - without witnesses or evidence - whether your story is plausible or not smells strongly of the judge deciding whether the facts stated in the complaint really do exist, or really do matter. And, yes, that smacks strongly of offending the 7th Amendment and denying a plaintiff (in a law-based cause of action) his right to a jury trial where the jurors and not the judge decide which facts are true and which not. But, it's the Supreme Court deciding this and they can get away with it.
Well, maybe. My recollection from law school is that, if you sue me and I move to dismiss the case, the judge must make all plausible inferences in my favor for purposes of deciding to dismiss early or not. So, if you claim that I was physically abusive to you at times during our friendship or relationship, then the judge WILL presume that I indeed was abusive...absent things like me showing that I was overseas at all alleged times, was incarcerated at all alleged times, etc..
(Note: I don't practice this type of law, so I don't know if judges actually do put their thumbs on the scales. One hopes not, of course.)
If the language from the quoted excerpt doesn't strike you as unusual, I'm guessing you don't do a lot of lawyering.
Prof. Volokh's link is broken (it's just a link to this post), but the case is 7:21-cv-06617, for anyone wants to look it up.
It appears that the plaintiff's firm has 20 attorneys on staff.
The entire complaint reads like the tabloid-ready work of a self-promoting blowhard. Check the relevant LinkedIn page, too.
It appears the author attended a school listed among
'worst law schools in the United States.'
Is the "thirst for blood" line enough to get a judge to strike the complaint under rule 12(f)?
IANAL and that rule doesn't mean anything to me... but I was surprised at the tone of the complaint. It seemed pretty dramatic to the point of causing me to think "really??? (while squinting my eyes super hard)"
Someone writes their complaints with a little
Liquid writers block.
Apologies if I'm missing something obvious, but why the did you begin the title of the post with "#TheyLied"
?
#TheyLied is an attempt to create a counter hashtag to #MeToo.
Because it was identifying the source of the lawsuit. It's not just a random lawsuit, it's a #TheyLied lawsuit, as a counterpoint to the #MeToo movement. It's a fairly well known hashtag.
This predates Social Media. When I went back to College one of my classmates was a "former" Police officer. After his divorce, his ex-wife didn't like the settlement, so she applied for a PFA alleging that after they were divorced he came over, hit her and pulled his gun on her. She was very specific about the day and time. She got the PFA and since he was accused of abusing her, his ability to carry a weapon was revoked. There was an investigation and it was determined that at the time she claimed he was abusing her, he was actually testifying in Court. Nobody would press charges against her for a falsified statement and nobody including his Union would stand up for him. He threatened a lawsuit and settled for the Union paying the cost of his going back to school.
I'm shocked that a Police Union failed to support a brother officier, that doesn't happen every day.