The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Default Judgment in Libel Case: No More "Lucy and the Football"
From Judge Carlton Reeves' decision today in Andreacchio v. Yax (S.D. Miss.):
Plaintiff Rae Andreacchio is the mother of Christian Andreacchio, a young man who allegedly "died under suspicious circumstances" in 2014. She resides in Lauderdale County, Mississippi, where she is a mental health service provider.
Defendant Karen Yax is a "prominent social media figure" known to her followers as "The Critical Kay." She operates a webcast where she discusses "real-crime stories." She is a resident of Michigan.
On March 21 and April 11, 2021, Yax discussed Christian Andreacchio's death on her webcast. Yax stated that Rae Andreacchio has "really dominated the narrative about this case via intimidation, bullying, outright lies … , bribery, getting people drunk, [and] getting young people drunk," among other claims. Yax also stated, "I really do believe that Hayes [Mitchell, a different patient,] was treated by Rae, and Hayes is now dead with a drug overdose …. He's dead also by self-harm. So, she has a son that is dead by self-harm. And she has a patient who is dead by self-harm."
Andreacchio contends that these statements "leave[] the false impression that [she] had somehow caused—or contributed—to their deaths." Andreacchio adds that these statements have "defamed or painted [her] in a false light, thereby causing her to suffer injury to her reputation and/or emotional damage." Accordingly, she filed this suit against Yax on June 4, 2021, alleging defamation and false light invasion of privacy.
Yax filed her answer on June 24, 2021, in which she asserted that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over her. Yax then filed a motion to dismiss on August 12, 2021, which this Court subsequently denied on November 19, 2021.
For the order denying the motion, see here; the key rationale was that "A review of the available communications suggests that the defendant intentionally and purposely wished her words to impact the plaintiff in Mississippi," which led to a conclusion that Mississippi courts (state and federal) had personal jurisdiction over the lawsuit based on those communications. Back to the default judgment opinion:
On November 30, 2021, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case scheduled a telephonic case management conference for December 14, 2021. Court staff mailed and emailed notice of the hearing to Yax. On December 14, however, Yax failed to dial-in to the conference. After issuing an Order to Show Cause, the Magistrate Judge sanctioned Yax $100. Docket Nos. 15 and 17. Yax timely paid the sanction. Discovery commenced.
In August 2022, Yax moved to have a fast-approaching settlement conference conducted by telephone or video. The Magistrate Judge denied the request but postponed the settlement conference to allow Yax additional time to make travel arrangements. The Magistrate Judge further ordered the parties to confer and select mutually-agreeable dates to hold the conference in person. Andreacchio says Yax "refused to comply with the Court's order to confer … [and] pick a date for the settlement conference."
On September 1, 2022, the Magistrate Judge scheduled a settlement conference for October 18, 2022. Yax was directed to appear in person. A Text-Only Order dated October 14 repeated this instruction. Yax, however, failed to appear.
Andreacchio subsequently moved for sanctions pursuant to Rule 16(f) for Yax's failure to attend the settlement conference, and filed the present motion for default judgment under Rules 16(f) and 37(b)(2)(A)(vi)…. Yax argues that her absence from the settlement conference was due to "economic constraints, lack of access to reasonable legal counsel, and … a legitimate fear for her physical safety, mental health and well-being ….."
In reply, Andreacchio contends that Yax's "poverty is very much in doubt," observing that Yax mailed her original motion to dismiss from Honolulu, Hawaii.
On February 1, 2023, the undersigned scheduled a motions hearing for March 20, 2023. The scheduling Order specifically noted the following: "The defendant is reassured that she will not waive her personal jurisdiction defense merely by appearing for a hearing in this case. She has already preserved her jurisdictional defense for further review." On March 10, the Magistrate Judge granted Andreacchio's motion for Rule 16(f) sanctions in the amount of $895.67. That sum is due to the Clerk of Court on or before May 1, 2023.
On March 20, Yax did not appear at the motions hearing before the undersigned. The Court denied Yax's outstanding motions as abandoned and pledged to rule on the outstanding motion for default judgment in due course….
[T]he Fifth Circuit has reframed the standard for default judgments into one with four requiring findings: that "(1) the discovery violation was committed willfully or in bad faith; (2) the client, rather than counsel, is responsible for the violation; (3) the violation substantially prejudiced the opposing party; and (4) a lesser sanction would not substantially achieve the desired deterrent effect." … In this case, the plaintiff has demonstrated all four elements of the applicable legal standard.
First, Yax has repeatedly violated Court Orders by failing to participate in telephonic and in-person hearings. These violations have been knowing and willful. Although she acknowledges in her filings that her presence would be "beneficial to the court in adjudicating this unfortunate matter," she has texted a third-party explaining that she will not come to Mississippi for this case, "Ever." [See the image reproduced at the start of the post. -EV]
Despite the undersigned's Order reassuring Yax that she would not forfeit her personal jurisdiction defense by appearing for a motions hearing, she failed to attend that, too. And while Yax protests that she lacks funding to participate in this litigation, the excuse only goes so far, since she could have participated in the telephonic case management conference without incurring any cost.
Second, because Yax is proceeding pro se, there is no question that she (and not an attorney) is solely responsible for her conduct.
Next, there is ample record evidence that Yax's failures to appear have prejudiced the opposing party. Every time the plaintiff and her attorney travel to Jackson for a hearing, they incur nearly $900 in expenses. When she plays this game of "Lucy and the football," therefore, Yax is running up her opponent's bill. That is the definition of prejudice.
Lastly, a lesser sanction would not substantially achieve Yax's participation in this lawsuit. Warnings and show cause orders have borne no fruit. If Yax lacks resources, a third award of monetary sanctions would be pointless. Incarceration, meanwhile, would likely be too severe a sanction. "Given this record, it is unclear what lesser sanctions could have been appropriate following the district court's warnings and second chances."
For these reasons, and on this record, the rare sanction of default judgment is warranted….
Andreacchio's motion for default judgment is granted. An evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine an appropriate amount of damages. One will be scheduled shortly. Yax is invited to participate.
Congratulations to Matthew Wilson, who represents Andreacchio. For a different case arising out of the death of Andreacchio's son, see Distributing Government-Released Autopsy Photos in Controversial Case Isn't Tortious.
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
Interesting. I had sensed Prof. Volokh was no longer interested in defamation cases.
Turns out it is only certain defamation cases that do not interest the Republicans' favorite defamation "scholar."
Arrogance 50%
Compensation for Inferiority Complex 50%
Substance 0%
Maybe he's smarter than you, Kirkland.
Highly politicized trials are bad examples to use when trying to explain the general principles of the law -- and last I checked, Volokh is a Professor of Law. While I have serious concerns about the case he discussed (stated below), it still is a good case to describe a default judgment or whatever this was. IANAA...
Tomorrow is thursday, you are free to post those two cases if you desire -- I'll be posting one where a school district told parents that another parent was responsible for bomb threats which *I* think is libelous, even though that is not what the mother is suing over.
But I'll go further -- if you want to make an issue of Fox settling with Dominion, think about one thing -- how much is it worth to them to not have to have their 83 (?) year old founder abused on the witness stand? How much is it worth to him personally, and how much is it worth to the corporation not to have people like you mocking him?
That's the Stormy Daniels issue -- and "nuisance suits" are routinely paid off to make them go away, as are "slip & fall" suits. WalMart defends every one (possibly excepting ones where they *know* they were negligent) out of the principle of the greater good of preventing fraud -- but they are an exception. Most people look it as "I can make this go away for $10K, or it will cost me $15K to defend it -- even if I win, it's going to cost me $5K more so why not settle..."
I once had an upset Police Lieutenant explain to me that UMass Amherst does this -- that there is a set figure (memory is $17K) where if a lawsuit is filed that they will have to defend, they will instead offer the amount and get a nondisclosure agreement. He was upset because it was a case where a student deliberately ran toward a marked police cruiser (witnesses stated) and then claimed to have been hit by said cruiser. (Student was Black, and also screamed racism.) Student refused settlement, case went to court and student lost.
My point Kirkland is that while you are free to advance your political agenda, it is not fair to attack Volock for not jumping on your bandwagon...
I criticize hypocrisy, cowardice, and bigotry.
This blog provides a constant canvas.
Never your own, or that of the your fellow American blue teamers, though. Wonder why...
This has been yet another edition of Fractured Fairy Tales by Dr. Ed.
That's actually libelous....
That doesn't seem to be much of a concern in the Reason-free speech zone...
You're under a pseudonym, chief.
Walmart settled with Tracy Morgan. Liability was clear in that case – a company employee driving a truck rear-ended the car carrying Morgan and there were no mitigating circumstances. It was unlike a slip-and-fall case where one might argue about how long the floor was slippery and who made it slippery.
It's so funny to see the Left prop up Fox as some sort of right-wing boogeyman.
Fox was in on the fraud as demonstrated by them calling AZ before the Dems even had a chance to finish stealing it.
Its just more Kabuki, just like what the Federal GOP does.
Fox was in on the fraud as demonstrated by them calling AZ before the Dems even had a chance to finish stealing it.
The preceding post was sponsored by https://www.reynoldsbrands.com/products/aluminum-foil
I have a real problem with this -- exactly what is the defendant's nexis to Mississippi?
Other than the fact that she was writing about someone who lived there, and may have flown over it enroute to Hawaii (and you gotta admit that was poor form if she really did postmark something from there), exactly what is her connection to that state?
Could Derek Chovin, pre-conviction, have filed a libel suit against assorted leaders of BLM and demanded they appear in the Minnesota Federal Court?
I really see this as an undue burden because (in addition to travel and lodging expenses, her own attorney(ies) would be unable to represent her because they (almost certainly) aren't licensed in MS. (Don't Federal Rules require compensating witnesses for interstate travel?) And isn't the court required to at least investigate indigency? (A boyfriend could have paid for the trip to Hawaii -- that doesn't mean that she can make him pay for one to Mississippi...)
And how is Andreacchio going to collect this judgment -- a Mississippi court doesn't have jurisdiction over Michigan authorities (I also argue it doesn't have jurisdiction over the defendant).
Now a completely unrelated question -- what happens if Andreacchio is later duly prosecuted and convicted of the crimes alleged. Can Yaz then reopen this case on the grounds that there now is proof beyond a reasonable doubt (a higher standard than preponderance) that she did NOT libel Andreacchio? And what if the Mississippi Department of Something merely pulls Andreacchio's medical license(s) because of these deaths. Would that then be considered new evidence? Or am I confusing this with criminal procedures?
It does seem wrong (unjust enrichment) for a plaintiff to keep the libel settlement after a criminal conviction proving the truthfulness of the statement, although I have a problem with jurisdiction to begin with. At least the New York Times had a physical presence in the state.
Back then, they probably printed in NYC and then sent the bundles of papers down on the night train where they were picked up in the early morning hours by local agents/employees who then would distribute them to newstands and subscribers who would be paying the NYT for them. (Today they probably email a .pdf of the entire paper down to a local printer and print it locally -- and then distribute from there. Cheaper & quicker.)
That's a nexis in the State of Alabama -- posting something in Michigan where someone's web browser in Mississippi went and got isn't a presence in Mississippi...
Look up Calder v. Jones. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/465/783/
Pretty applicable here.
Jurisdiction is a procedural matter for which there are extensive court rules. I'm not very familiar with them anymore, but I'm fairly confident that the judge (or his law clerk) is.
The article quotes the judge on the jurisdiction point: "the key rationale was that "A review of the available communications suggests that the defendant intentionally and purposely wished her words to impact the plaintiff in Mississippi," which led to a conclusion that Mississippi courts (state and federal) had personal jurisdiction over the lawsuit based on those communications."
If you do not agree, why not? As a general rule, if you don't want to incur the expense of fighting a lawsuit somewhere inconvenient, don't "intentionally and purposely ... impact the plaintiff" there. Otherwise, people located in remote jurisdictions would essentially be immune from the consequences of their intentional acts. How is that just?
Attorneys can usually appear in a foreign court after getting the court's permission. In a country with more than 50 jurisdictions, it happens all the time. Costs money, obviously, but see the general rule above.
Enforcement of a judgment (assuming there is one) is always a separate matter from liability--especially when the defendant is an individual. She may have money; she may not.
Don't know about your final hypothetical, but given the fact the kid died in 2014, it isn't very likely that any criminal prosecution will take place now.
I know what the judge means, but they sure worded it badly.
We're talking another US state here. It's not like the defendant is in Nigeria. Sue them in their state's courts and it's no more of a burden for you than the burden you want to put on them. All else being equal I would put the burden on the one filing; they're the ones who can decide whether it's worth it.
Come on. You can't know whether the defendant has *actually* done this until you've decided the merits. And you can't decide the merits before deciding jurisdiction.
1) The word is "nexus." Not "nexis."
2) Her connection to Mississippi is that she targeted her communications there. There's a test.
3) No, the court is not required to "investigate" indigency. If the defendant wanted to provide proof of such, she could have; merely asserting it is not enough.
4) She didn't have any lawyers, so your argument is moot, but they could have been admitted PHV in Mississippi, or she could have hired local lawyers. This is not something esoteric; it happens all the time.
5) What interstate witnesses are you contemplating? Presumably virtually all witnesses will be in Mississippi already.
6) How does anyone ever collect an out of state judgment? You domesticate it in the state and follow the normal procedures. Ever heard of the full faith & credit clause?
7) Can the case be reopened? Sometimes, but only within a year. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.
I’m the lawyer for Mrs. Andreacchio. Perhaps I can shed light on your questions.
The complaint alleges that Ms. Yax made the comments in question on her YouTube program while she was doing a phone interview with two Mississippi residents.
“A single act by a defendant can be enough to confer personal jurisdiction if that act gives rise to the claim being asserted.” Lewis v. Fresne, 252 F.3d 352, 358-59 (5th Cir. 2001). “When the actual content of communications with a forum gives rise to intentional tort causes of action, this alone constitutes purposeful availment. The defendant is purposefully availing himself of the privilege of causing a consequence in [the forum state].” Wien Air Alaska, Inc. v. Brandt, 195 F.3d 208, 213 (5th Cir. 1999).
Another case on point is Brown v. Flowers Indus., Inc., 688 F.2d 328, 334 (5th Cir. 1982), in which the lower court said that a single defamatory phone call was not enough to confer jurisdiction, but the 5th Circuit reversed.
So essentially the complaint alleges that she made a single defamatory phone call to the state of Mississippi— which just happened to be simulcast on YouTube.
As for collecting the judgment, one can enroll a foreign judgment in Michigan. Of course, she may attempt to collaterally attack it. But we will see.
As for your hypothetical about if Mrs. Andreacchio being found guilty, I’ll defer to the more academically minded on this thread.
(Reply to Dr Ed 2; it did not get linked properly.)
I think most of the early questions are answered by the judge in the ruling on the motion which was linked to in the post.
No idea on the second question, but I expect someone else will answer, possibly before I finish this comment.
"published in the National Enquirer, a national magazine having its largest circulation in California."
The distinction I am making -- perhaps incorrectly -- is that physically distributing a magazine (or newspaper) in a state involves a physical presence in that state.
No small physical presence as you have (literally) tons of paper which you have to physically deliver to either your retail vendors and/or your subscribers -- and both are paying you for doing so.
So you have employees and trucks (registered in California) and today quite likely it being actually printed in California from a .pdf emailed from Florida. (It's a lot cheaper and easier than driving all those tons of dead trees 3000 miles each week.)
To give an example of how much consolidation there has been, all but one of the newspapers in the entire State of Maine are printed on one press in Lewiston and then trucked to their distribution points -- it's cheaper if it's less than 200 miles -- and cheaper to print remotely if it's more than a few thousand.
My point is that the National Enquirer had an actual physical presence in California. It had employees -- California residents -- who were living on paychecks from the N/E.
That's a big difference from some woman who has never set foot in Mississippi (I presume) and merely is writing about someone down there...
Like I said, could Derek Chauvin have sued all of BLM in Minnesota courts???
Physical presence is so 20th Century...
The Supreme Court decision in Calder was about two Florida journalists, not the National Enquirer itself. They wrote about actress Shirley Jones in an article published by the Enquirer nationwide, including California.
Point is, they knew their article, about someone who lives and works in California, would be published nationwide, including the home state of the target. SCOTUS says it's fair to sue them there. Sounds to me very much like the internet.
The power of the internet is that it allows reaching a very wide (world-wide) audience very, very easily. The flip side is that it is easy to harm someone very remote from the person writing and posting. The argument is, if you decide to harness that power, then you have to take the responsibility that comes with it. Seems fair, which is what the Due Process Clause requires.
What would Derek Chauvin have sued "all of BLM" for? How would it not have made his existing legal problems worse? What could it possibly have achieved?
No, you can't sue letters of the alphabet.
XYZ Corp., the most sued entity in America, begs to differ.
Been taking the Queen's dissembling and obfuscation online courses?
No. Can I get CLE credit for that?
The King's?
Another interesting defamation issue:
Was it one of Ginni Thomas' clients who bolstered the confidence of Mr. Dinh concerning prospects at the Supreme Court? Was Fox News a Ginni Thomas client? Was Josh Blackman involved in the communication circuits?
(Also, if Mr. Dinh had 'taken on an outsize role at Fox Corp.,' should he be held accountable for the flaming shitstorm that was Fox's despicable, lying conduct (including, apparently, lying to a judge in addition to habitually lying to the American public) and the reason for a three-quarters-of-a-billion-dollar payout?)
This is just the first of many defamation cases we can expect the Volokh Conspiracy to try to ignore. Smartmatic v. Fox. Dominion Systems v. the individual liars and un-American jerks.