Lawyer Wins Libel Case Against Husband's Ex-Lover -- But Verdict Is $5K

From Judge John Cronan's decision today in Graterol-Garrido v. Vega (S.D.N.Y.); it's interesting and detailed (32 pages), but here's the Introduction:

Plaintiff Maria Herminia Graterol-Garrido brought this against Defendant Patricia Maria Vega, alleging that Vega made several defamatory statements about her on May 16, 2020. In 2010, Vega had a sexual encounter with Graterol-Garrido's husband, which resulted in the birth of a child early the next year. The allegedly defamatory statements included social media postings that accused Graterol-Garrido of misconduct related to the resulting family court proceedings, Graterol-Garrido's financial dealings, and other matters. Vega also sent messages over Facebook to Graterol-Garrido's prospective business affiliate in Australia, conveying similar allegations.

A two-day bench trial occurred on November 9 and 10, 2021. For reasons that follow, the Court finds in favor of Graterol-Garrido as to all causes of action, concluding that Vega defamed Graterol-Garrido through various statements made on May 16, 2020, and awards judgment in the amount of $5,000….

Graterol-Garrido studied law in Venezuela before obtaining graduate degrees from Harvard University and Columbia Law School. She has specialized in women's rights advocacy since 1995, has done extensive work with the United Nations including as a consultant, and has served on boards of directors for various nonprofit institutions.

And, as to damages:

"Presumed damages are justified on the grounds that those forms of defamation that are actionable per se are virtually certain to cause serious injury to reputation, and that this kind of injury is extremely difficult to prove." Likewise, "mental and emotional distress" are difficult to prove. However, the "entitlement to general damages does not imply a right to substantial damages," which requires "a finding of substantial injury."

The Court thus considers the harm to Graterol-Garrido when assessing damages. As just noted, there was actual harm here. The most evident professional harm to Graterol-Garrido came from Vega's messages to the Think+Do Tank Foundation. Upon receiving the messages, the Foundation initiated an internal investigation that required Graterol-Garrido to turn over sensitive documents and involved interviews of Graterol-Garrido's friends and professional colleagues. While going through a very difficult period, Graterol-Garrido had to provide the Foundation with deeply personal information about her crumbling marriage, as well as references to vouch for her character.

Graterol-Garrido still received a seat on the board of directors, but agreed with the Foundation that she should not serve as its chairperson out of concerns that Vega's allegations would negatively impact the Foundation's fundraising efforts. And again, the failure of Vega's defamation to further impede Graterol-Garrido's relationship with the Foundation was not for lack of effort on Vega's part. Vega explicitly "urged" the Foundation "to keep clear accounts to ensure [Graterol-Garrido's] financial misconduct … is not repeated."

Further harm suffered by Graterol-Garrido has come from her resulting decision to affirmatively disclose Vega's online allegations when applying to prospective positions. And Graterol-Garrido testified credibly that Vega's allegations has led her to cease using social media and impacted her willingness to pursue certain professional opportunities.

The Court also has considered the harm caused while mindful of the limited circulation of Vega's social media postings. Vega testified that both the Facebook Post and the Twitter Post were quickly removed by the social media services, and there is no evidence otherwise. The short period of time when these defamatory messages were viewable mitigates the damage they caused. Graterol-Garrido did not offer evidence as to the number of Vega's Facebook "friends" or Twitter "followers," and there is no reason to believe that her personal social media pages had particularly large viewerships.

At the same time, Vega has made many online allegations about Graterol-Garrido beyond the Facebook Post and the Twitter Post since the start of this litigation. She has also, at least to an extent, attempted to prevent her libelous posting on Twitter from being removed by company. Vega also implied that she has nothing to lose, given her current financial situation, which further warrants anxiety on Graterol-Garrido's part that Vega's defamatory conduct will continue going forward. Indeed, as noted above, Vega continued to make social media postings attacking Graterol-Garrido even after Graterol-Garrido commenced this litigation.

Considering all of these factors, the Court awards Graterol-Garrido $5,000 in damages for her injuries. The Court does not find that a further award of punitive damages is appropriate.

I hope the plaintiff was happy just because of the public exoneration, though I expect that it was a pretty expensive exoneration. Of course, the reference to Vega's having " implied that she has nothing to lose, given her current financial situation" suggests that a $5,000,000 award wouldn't have yielded practically different financial results than a $5,000 award.

Congratulations to Joshua B. Katz of Kent, Beatty & Gordon, LLP, who represented the plaintiff.

Comments

[Longtobefree]

"And Graterol-Garrido testified credibly that Vega's allegations has led her to cease using social media . . . "

So the only good result?

[Ginny Clarence]

What kind of idiot asks for a bench trial as a defamation plaintiff? This woman is demonstrably unfit to practice law because of tactical stupidity.

[santamonica811]

Ginny,
1. You obviously are not a lawyer. 2. You obviously never went to law school. 3. There are several perfectly plausible reasons why such a plaintiff might want a bench trial (eg, you, the plaintiff, are aware that you don't come across as very likeable and you know a jury might hold that against you unfairly; or, you are perfectly likeable, but the defendant is even more likeable and/or sympathetic, and you want to keep *that* away from jurors; or, you really do care only about vindication rather than a huge (and un-collectable??) judgment, so a bench trial is far better.

So, I'd be carefully about throwing around the "idiot" insult . . . glass houses, and all that.

(I do agree with your unspoken point that $5K is a really low award. I'm curious if the judge factored in the defendant's assets, and picked a number large enough to hurt, but not so large that it would make collecting impossible.)

Eugene Question One: I assume one reason to ask for a bench trial (ie, more of a sure thing) rather than risking a jury trial is: With a court ruling that the statements were untruthful; can the plaintiff now get other websites to take down repetitions of the libel, if defendant posts them in the future? (I assume so.)

Eugene Question Two: If a judge/jury has found a statement libelous; can a judge then order a defendant to not repeat this false statement going forward? If so, is this something that victorious libel/slander plaintiffs routinely ask for? Is it routinely granted by judges? If not, why not? If a defendant is judgment-proof, then the threat of a second future trial, based on new repetitions of the same libel, is of minimal deterrence. But maybe the fear of a Contempt of Court charge would be more successful. It would seem that the usual First Amendment concerns about prior restraint are less at play when regarding false statements (that have been proven to be false in a court of law).

[restrainedathome]

I was the defendant in this case. I asked for a jury trial to defend myself. They obtained a bench trial because a single judge was easily influenced with bias that would not have swayed a panel of taxpaying americans. Joshua Katz lied, patently about the establishment of my son's rights by introducing precedent suggesting that "final" orders are in place. They knew I could not afford a lawyer, they know I could not afford to appeal. The plaintiff lied about her Actual damages in her complaint as well as many other patent falsehoods. She is a VENEZUELAN citizen who is not even entitled to be Heard in a Federal Court invoking diversity under 1332, the only case in which a foreign party can be joined is as an ADDITIONAL party. To obtain enforcement, the case has to be registered in the State and Australia - which is probably the only way my son's rights will ever be established because the attorneys representing her husband have lied to the Family and Supreme Court about facts of public record in Cook County Illinois. I literally cannot obtain child protective services for abandonment, neglect and non-support since 2014 because there is no enforceable relationship. The plaintiff and her husband are foreigners, neither of them are entitled to "consent" to the jurisdiction of limited jurisdiction tribunals under the treaties between our countries. But this was an effective way to hinder and delay prosecution - the case was literally filed while I was trying to appeal a case that was dismissed because the plaintiff's husband's lawyer lied, patently.
Federal Court is one of the only courts in the US where a person's civil liberties can be threatened without an attorney being assigned - they were seeking $150,000 - based on patently false allegations of lost income. No jury of taxpaying US Citizens would have granted this, they threatened my freedom of speech and movement, the whole time, even after the fraudulent statements of income were exposed, they continued the case in the pretense that they wanted a restraining order. I am not a lawyer but I tried to object to the proceeding and DID NOT consent to the oversight of limited jurisdiction magistrate in writing. I thought they could get a default order to restrain my movement and speech, I knew their financial claims were patently false so I only appeared because I was afraid they would deprive my freedom of speech. My posts were taken complete out of context of THOUSANDS of posts about Randi Karmel, the sociopathic lawyer who advises the husband. I wanted to appeal the order but I could not afford the fee and I did not have time to learn the rules to apply in pauperis. You can see the disputed deeds in ACRIS yourself, the 2012 deed is made out to my son's father and the 2018 deed alleges that an LLC holds title and granted the property to the stepmom. I was accused of falsely alleging that the property was transferred "to disinherit" the judge determined that the property was transferred "to protect it from child support enforcement" I am confident that when a Judge of general jurisdiction is finally assigned to establish my son's rights including his international rights to full, compulsory discovery this verdict will be tossed. The father fabricated US, resident tax returns, and the plaintiff falsely affirmed that they were filed in the US. Since then, the State of New York has confirmed that none of the tax returns were filed in the US. The Plaintiff and her husband had a tax treaty requirement to file in Australia. THAT is why they did not want a Jury and it is why I DID ask for a jury but was denied one, a JURY of US taxpayers who actually paid the salary of the judge who believed Joshua Katz's patently false statements would not have been conned. A Taxpayer panel of US people who actually observe the IRS filing requirements would not have been duped by a times square lawyer in a fancy suit who literally alleged that I was irresponsible for attempting to represent myself, knowing I could not afford a lawyer. They made ZERO attempt to contact me and the offensive post was taken down, by me, after less than 24 hours. This was an attempt to humiliate me and my son. I did not have an affair with her husband, the Judge's finding shows that he clearly did not read the deposition and that his ruling is punishing for choosing life to a child I have been trying to protect from abuse for years.
ALSO, the Plaintiff was supposed to testify as a witness in family court and she refused to appear in a case in which a judge is required to serve the interests of children. She could have filed this complaint FOR FREE, she filed in this Court and requested a bench trial because she did NOT want the Court to serve the interests of my son or any other US citizens and taxpayers.
This woman reported ZERO income from any source since 2011 while living in the United States and alleged to have lost $150,000 USD in the sixteen days from when my post was up for 20 hours to when her attorney filed the case.
She did not lose a job opportunity. She is on the board. She directs the company without the title, because she chooses to. AND the statement that was theoretically offensive and resulting in the totally arbitrary award of $5k for a person who earns less than $50k per year since she started working in February 2020 was not even public, it was sent privately.
I was punished for choosing to give life to a child I did not plan to conceive and attempting to protect and establish his rights. IF they seek enforcement by registering with the AG of NY, they will have to pay for it and that is unlikely because my 2014 Petition for child protection has not yet been reported to the State and the remedies cumulative owed to me and my son have not even been investigated by the State. You can verify the deed yourself and tax returns for the House of Language Acquisition yourself. I even introduced state authenticated, certified evidence that paternity was not established but the Court did not consider it within the scope of the proceeding. THAT is why they did not want a jury trial, at least one person in a jury will be paying or receiving legally calculated child support - and recognize that this case was all about covering up the fact that plaintiff's husband is not.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

My firm handled a wrongful death case years ago in which a jury -- a rural jury, maybe not a college graduate in the bunch -- awarded $15,000 for the life of a 19-year-old auto accident victim (passenger). The goobers didn't like hearing that she had been drinking (with plenty of others) outside the alcohol-free wedding reception in a church hall. Our trial team also sensed the jurors disliked her college attendance (she had left town for school, but returned for a friend's wedding).

The judge revised the award, as he should have.

Some people are nearly too stupid to live (at least, without substantial assistance). The judge said that -- in essence -- to that jury after the verdict was read. The parents of the victim also had a few words for the jurors, who seemed shocked that anyone questioned their judgment.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

The trial was in November, and the judgement was released today?

That is not 'good behavior', Judge Cronan.... That is slackadaisical and lazy.