Baker v. Kuritzky, 95 F. Supp. 3d 52

Plaintiff Clark Baker (retired police officer) and his nonprofit OMSJ allege defendant Kevin Kuritzky published numerous false statements online harming Baker’s reputation and OMSJ’s business opportunities.
Alleged defamatory statements include claims Baker was criminally fired, molested his daughter, has psychological disorders, is dangerous/dishonest, and that OMSJ spreads falsehoods to harm homosexuals and HIV‑infected persons.
Kuritzky, served in 2013, did not respond or appear; a default was entered and plaintiffs moved for default judgment and injunctive relief (seeking a broad bar on false statements and removal of online material).
Court applied California law to the libel claims because Baker and OMSJ are based in California and the publications were online.
The court found nine specific statements to be libelous on their face and that plaintiffs alleged special damages (loss of business opportunities); libel claim established by default; other claims dismissed as moot.
Court granted a narrowly tailored injunction prohibiting Kuritzky from making or publishing the specific libelous statements and ordering removal of those statements from online venues he controls.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether default supports libel judgment	Baker: default admits the alleged defamatory statements and damages	Kuritzky: no answer or appearance (no active defense raised)	Default taken as establishing libel for nine statements; judgment for plaintiffs on libel
Choice of law	Baker: California law governs because plaintiffs and OMSJ are California‑based and harm occurred there	(No responsive argument)	Court applied California law under Klaxon and Restatement principles
Scope of injunctive relief re: defamatory speech	Baker: requests broad injunction barring any false statements about plaintiffs and removal of online content	Kuritzky: (no response) but First Amendment limits prior restraints	Injunction allowed but narrowly tailored to the specific statements found libelous; broad ban denied
First Amendment/prior restraint concern	Baker: injunction necessary to prevent ongoing irreparable reputational harm	Kuritzky: (no response) but constitutional limits on prior restraints apply	Court: post‑adjudication, narrow injunction banning repetition/removal of specific libelous statements is permissible; broad prior restraint would be unconstitutional

Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (choice‑of‑law for federal courts in diversity cases)
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (statements implying false facts can be defamatory)
Greenbelt Coop. Publ’g Ass’n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (rhetorical hyperbole not actionable)
Old Dominion v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264 (figurative language and First Amendment scope)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (actual malice standard for public‑figure defamation)
Auburn Police Union v. Carpenter, 8 F.3d 886 (1st Cir.) (narrow, post‑adjudication injunction against defamatory speech may be permissible)
Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (limits on speech and governmental regulation)
Ross‑Simons of Warwick, Inc. v. Baccarat, Inc., 217 F.3d 8 (1st Cir.) (irreparable harm to reputation supports injunctive relief)
Lothschuetz v. Carpenter, 898 F.2d 1200 (6th Cir.) (injunction appropriate when defendant repeatedly makes defamatory statements)