Concerned Citizens For Judicial Fairness, Inc. v. Philip J. Yacucci
162 So. 3d 68
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Incumbent county judge Philip Yacucci sued challenger Stephen Smith and Concerned Citizens for Judicial Fairness (an electioneering communications organization) alleging defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from a campaign website and videos republishing old newspaper stories and other accusations.
- The complaint alleged Citizens and Smith were responsible for the website and described three commercial videos; Yacucci attached a 1991 Close-Out Memo to show no charges were filed.
- At the temporary-injunction hearing no witnesses testified and no exhibits were introduced; Yacucci’s counsel made unsworn factual assertions.
- The circuit court declined to enjoin Smith but entered a broad temporary injunction against Citizens, prohibiting dissemination of the website, its materials, and “any other information about the Plaintiff,” and set a $10,000 bond.
- The Fourth District stayed the injunction and reversed it in full, concluding the injunction was unsupported by evidence, was overly broad and imprecise, and constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint on political speech.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a temporary injunction prohibiting dissemination of website materials was justified | Yacucci: website and videos published false, misleading, and defamatory statements causing irreparable harm that warrant injunctive relief | Citizens/Smith: injunction improperly restricts speech; inadequate proof; remedies at law available | Reversed: injunction improper — prior restraint on speech and First Amendment concerns defeat injunction |
| Whether plaintiff met evidentiary burden for a temporary injunction | Yacucci: relied on complaint, exhibits, and counsel’s courtroom statements | Citizens/Smith: no competent, sworn evidence; counsel argument is not evidence | Reversed: plaintiff offered no competent evidence; unsworn attorney argument insufficient |
| Whether the injunction was sufficiently precise under Rule 1.610(c) | Yacucci: sought broad relief to stop dissemination of false material | Citizens/Smith: injunction was overbroad and lacked required specificity | Reversed: order failed to describe restrained acts with reasonable detail; overly broad |
| Whether defamation claims justify prior restraint during a political campaign | Yacucci: alleged statements are defamatory and harmful; injunctive relief necessary | Citizens/Smith: defamation generally remedies at law; political speech receives highest protection; prior restraint disfavored | Reversed: political-campaign speech receives full First Amendment protection; prior restraint intolerable; damages action is available |
Key Cases Cited
- Neb. Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (prior restraints are the most serious First Amendment infringement)
- Eu v. San Francisco Cnty. Democratic Ctr. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (First Amendment has its fullest application to campaign speech)
- Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265 (campaign speech principle)
- Ollman v. Evans, 750 F.2d 970 (D.C. Cir.) (public-figure plaintiffs must accept republication of past reporting during political controversy)
- Wilson v. Superior Court, 532 P.2d 116 (Cal.) (suppressing statements as untrue raises specter of censorship)
- Chevaldina v. R.K./FL Mgmt., Inc., 133 So. 3d 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (injunctions must describe restrained acts with reasonable detail)
- Vrasic v. Leibel, 106 So. 3d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (temporary injunctions generally not available to prohibit alleged defamatory statements)
- Post-Newsweek Stations Orlando, Inc. v. Guetzloe, 968 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (privacy claims subject to First Amendment limits)
- Barnes v. Horan, 841 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (public-figure defamation standard and available remedies)