2:25-cv-00044
E.D. La.Sep 23, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Coleman and Dermatology NOLA Inc. sue Farina and Beauty Brokers in E.D. La. for defamation per se and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Defendant Farina allegedly posted defamatory content on her personal and Beauty Brokers’ social media in response to the Reddit account Overall_fix06, allegedly run by Coleman.
- Coleman is a Louisiana citizen; Dermatology NOLA Inc. is a Delaware corporation with principal place in Louisiana; Farina is a New Jersey citizen; Beauty Brokers is a New Jersey corporation with principal place in New Jersey.
- Plaintiffs filed suit January 5, 2025; defendants counterclaimed for defamation, false light, abuse of process, IIED, NIED, New Jersey tortious interference, and LUTPA; amendments followed.
- Louisiana decision governs defamation/false light/abuse; New Jersey governs tortious interference; LUTPA analyzed with Louisiana choice-of-law framework; statute-of-limitations considerations discussed.
- Court grants in part and denies in part: certain pre-June 19, 2024 defamation/LUTPA claims dismissed with prejudice; post-June 19, 2024 claims survive; tortious interference dismissed; false light dismissed with leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are defamation claims time-barred? | Coleman/dermatology argue timely for post-2024 statements. | Farina/Beauty Brokers contend prior publications are time-barred. | Time-barred for pre-June 19, 2024 statements; timely for post-2024 statements. |
| Does false light survive Louisiana review? | False light arises from public online persona. | No privacy interest pled; repackaged defamation. | Dismissed for failure to plead necessary privacy element. |
| Is there a viable tortious interference with prospective economic advantage claim? | New Jersey law recognizes the tort; could apply. | Louisiana law governs; no freestanding tort under Louisiana law. | Dismissed; Louisiana law applies and negates the claim. |
| Does LUTPA survive or bar under the pleaded facts? | LUTPA may support unfair trade practices. | Allegations require timely, specific misrepresentation and public policy concerns. | LUTPA claims dismissed for pre-June 19, 2024 statements; post-date claims survive. |
| Is abuse of process still viable given procedural posture? | Abuse of process asserted in original counterclaims. | Abuse of process asserted in First Amended Counterclaim is moot. | Moot; dismissed as to abuse of process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must be plausible, not merely possible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (concludes on plausibility and legal conclusion separation)
- Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2009) (requires plausible facts showing each element)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (statutory interpretation of pleading requirements)
- Wiggins v. Creary, 475 So.2d 780 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1985) (publication-specific defamation limitations guidance)
- 9 to 5 Fashions, Inc. v. Spurney, 538 So.2d 228 (La. 1989) (tort choice-of-law framework in Louisiana)
- Easter Seal Soc. v. Playboy Enters., Inc., 530 So.2d 643 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1988) (definitional distinction between defamation and privacy torts)
- Omnitech Int’l, Inc. v. Clorox Co., 11 F.3d 1316 (5th Cir. 1997) (unfair trade practices analysis in LUTPA context)
- Flaherty & Crumrine Preferred Income Fund, Inc. v. TXU Corp., 565 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 2009) (fraud pleading requirements under Rule 9(b))
- Williams v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 417 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. 2005) (Rule 9(b) specificity for fraud claims)
- Aggreko, L.L.C. v. Chartis Specialty Ins. Co., 942 F.3d 682 (5th Cir. 2019) (choice-of-law and conflict analysis guidance)