401 Public Safety and Lifeline Data Centers, LLC v. David Ray and the Committee to Elect David Ray
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 284
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- 401 Public Safety (401) owns part of the former Eastgate Mall; Lifeline Data Centers (Lifeline) leased part; both are managed by Alex Carroll.
- Lifeline made political contributions to incumbent Ben Hunter in 2010 and 2013; Hunter advocated for a 25-year City lease (the Lease) of part of the mall.
- During the 2015 City-County Council campaign, David Ray's committee circulated a flyer criticizing Hunter and referencing Lifeline's contributions, the Lease, media reports of safety/code problems, and the building evacuation. The flyer did not mention 401 by name.
- 401 and Lifeline sued Ray and the Committee for defamation based solely on the flyer. Ray moved to dismiss under Indiana’s Anti‑SLAPP statute; the trial court granted dismissal on summary judgment.
- The court of appeals affirmed as to 401 and Lifeline, concluding the flyer addressed a public issue and that defendants acted in good faith without actual malice; Judge Mathias concurred in part and dissented as to Lifeline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the flyer addressed a "public issue" for Anti‑SLAPP purposes | Flyer targeted private parties, but concerned property and contracts | Flyer addressed political campaign, public lease, taxpayer impact, safety—matters of public interest | Held: Yes — flyer related to public issues (campaign, Lease, safety, taxpayer funds) |
| Whether defendants acted in good faith and with reasonable basis (no actual malice) | Statements implied Lifeline "bought" the Lease and were false/misleading; malice exists | Statements were true, quoted media, or fair opinion; defendants had factual basis and lacked subjective doubt | Held: As to Lifeline majority: defendants acted in good faith without actual malice; summary judgment proper |
| Whether the flyer contained defamatory statements about 401 | 401 claimed the photo and allegations implicated it | Flyer never named 401; photo depicted part of complex but not identified as 401; no defamatory imputation shown | Held: Summary judgment for defendants as to 401 — no plausible defamatory statement about 401 |
| Sufficiency of evidence to avoid Anti‑SLAPP dismissal (Mathias dissent) | Genuine issue exists whether defendants knew ownership/causation and whether statements implied Lifeline had contract/responsibility; dispute of fact on actual malice | Defendants relied on true contribution records, media reports, and political context; no evidence of subjective doubt or intent to harm | Held: Majority affirmed dismissal for Lifeline; dissent would reverse as to Lifeline, finding material fact issues on actual malice |
Key Cases Cited
- Shepard v. Schurz Commc’ns, Inc., 847 N.E.2d 219 (Ind. Ct. App.) (discusses Anti‑SLAPP interaction with common‑law defamation and standard for actual malice)
- Brandom v. Coupled Prods., LLC, 975 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. Ct. App.) (defines "public issue" and categories for Anti‑SLAPP protection)
- Journal‑Gazette Co. v. Bandido’s, Inc., 712 N.E.2d 446 (Ind.) (examines defendant's state of mind in defamation and political/public‑interest context)
- Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (U.S. 1982) (recognizes the special First Amendment context for political campaigns)