What Apparently Didn't Happen in Lisbon Didn't Stay in Lisbon. Result: Libel Takedown Injunction
From Wednesday's decision by Judge K. Michael Moore in Signorello v. Murphy (S.D. Fla.):
{The following facts are taken from the Complaint, and a "party in default has admitted all well-pleaded allegations of fact" therein.} Underlying this action is an altercation between Plaintiffs and Defendant in Lisbon, Portugal.
Defendant accompanied Plaintiffs, who were both college students, on a night out after meeting by chance earlier that day, which according to Plaintiffs was initially welcome but became increasingly uncomfortable throughout the evening, culminating in an "almost manic" outburst from Defendant after which he started following Plaintiffs' group and accusing one of Plaintiffs' classmates, Harry, of stealing money. As Defendant continued to harass and follow Plaintiffs' group, Harry took out his wallet to offer Defendant the allegedly stolen cash to end the confrontation, but Defendant grabbed his wallet, tore up the bills, and yelled: "You think this money means anything to me?!"
After further attempts to retrieve the wallet, at the suggestion of nearby club bouncers the group went to the police, who located Defendant and forced him to return the wallet. Defendant again started yelling obscenities and otherwise harassing Plaintiffs' group, which led to a physical altercation where Defendant was attacking Harry and Plaintiffs were jumping on Defendant and pulling him to the ground to end his attack, after which they got away.
Immediately Defendant sought to make himself a victim of the attack, both in the moment and on social media in the following days, prompting the police to investigate Plaintiffs. Defendant spoke menacingly to Neubauer by mentioning his address in Tennessee, which he had apparently researched since the fight, and after Plaintiffs left Portugal, Defendant and his associates continued to send harassing messages to Plaintiffs' group over email, text, X, as well as sending defamatory and harmful information about Plaintiffs to their school, Washington & Lee University. Both Washington & Lee University and their study-abroad affiliate school in the United Kingdom required Plaintiffs to explain the altercation and Defendant's accusations.
Aside from the group, Plaintiffs' parents and Signorello's sister have also received harassing text messages with pictures of Defendant's injuries and demands for payments, among other texts characterizing Plaintiffs as having committed a crime, which caused them academic and professional issues and embarrassment.
Plaintiffs sued for, among other things, defamation; the defendant failed to adequately respond, and was thus found in default, which meant that plaintiffs' factual allegations were accepted. Here is the court's analysis:
[1.] Plaintiffs ask the Court to enjoin Defendant from publishing defamatory statements, "including but not limited to Internet, emails, text, and social media posts, including but not limited to any allegation stating, or implying, that Plaintiffs harmed the Defendant," to enjoin him from contacting Plaintiffs' "employers, universities, friends and family regarding the Plaintiffs" as well as with Plaintiffs and their affiliates, and to order him "to remove any existing social media or other internet posts making statements regarding the Plaintiffs." …
It is well-settled Florida law that "absen[t] some other independent ground for invoking equitable jurisdiction, equity will not enjoin either an actual or threatened defamation" as that would constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint. There is disagreement among courts as to whether this rule continues to apply when there has been an actual finding of particular speech being false and defamatory, either by judge or jury, which has sometimes been called the "modern rule." See Basulto v. Netflix, Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2023) (collecting cases as to this split). While most cases recognizing the modern rule have been outside of this District, and there are no decisions binding on this Court that have adopted it, at least one court in this District has granted injunctive relief for defamation on the "independent ground" that "an action at law would not be a complete, prompt and efficient remedy."
Plaintiffs have satisfied the three prongs of the test for a permanent injunction based on the Court's finding that they adequately stated their claim for defamation, mere damages will not stop Defendant from continuing his ongoing digital harassment campaign against Plaintiffs and their affiliates, and that as Defendant's campaign continues so does the harm to Plaintiffs as they are forced to defend themselves against false accusations to friends, family, schools, and employers. The remaining question, therefore, is whether such an injunction may be granted in this defamation context.
The courts in Lustig v. Stone (S.D. Fla. 2015) and Saadi v. Maroun (M.D. Fla. 2009) granted permanent injunctions narrowly tailored to only postings that the defendants had already made online and had already been found to be defamatory. Lustig ("[Defendant] has shown through her conduct a single-minded intent to destroy [Plaintiff] professionally and personally …. In particular, the Undersigned notes that none of [Defendant's] defamatory internet postings about [Plaintiff] have been taken down and they continue to damage his reputation."); Saadi ("[T]he Court finds that [Defendant] should be enjoined from continued or repeated publishing of the statements that were found by the jury to be defamatory. However, the scope of the injunction must be limited to those statements.").
The Court will similarly constrain itself here. Accordingly, Plaintiffs will be granted a limited permanent injunction covering only statements regarding Defendant's false and defamatory assertions that Plaintiffs attacked, assaulted, robbed, or otherwise committed criminal acts against or harmed Defendant, which allegations Defendant has admitted by default.
This injunction requires Defendant to both take down the existing internet posts of any kind that reflect these defamatory assertions and cease and desist from making any outreach to Plaintiffs and their affiliates, including any institutions and actual or prospective employers, to convey the same including but not limited to internet, emails, texts, and social media posts. The injunction will not extend to a broad category of unspecified "derogatory statements" or "any statements about either or both of the Plaintiffs," and instead will be limited to any statements that reflect the information properly presented to the Court and that has been specifically adjudicated as defamatory….
Marty Steinberg and Hans H. Hertell (Hogan Lovells) represent plaintiff.