Coomer v. Giuliani
22CA0843
Colo. Ct. App.Nov 14, 2024Background
- Eric Coomer, former Director at Dominion Voting Systems, sued Rudy Giuliani for defamation, IIED, civil conspiracy, and injunctive relief, based on statements made after the 2020 election.
- Giuliani, representing the Trump Campaign, repeated claims at a November 2020 press conference that Coomer had rigged the election against Trump, relying on an account from podcast host Joe Oltmann.
- Coomer denied involvement in any alleged conference call, denied making anti-Trump comments, and denied any action to subvert the election.
- Giuliani sought dismissal under Colorado’s anti-SLAPP statute, arguing the litigation privilege, lack of actual malice, and failure to state viable claims.
- The district court denied Giuliani’s motion to dismiss in its entirety. Giuliani appealed this denial after a bankruptcy stay was lifted.
- The Colorado Court of Appeals addressed Giuliani’s separate claims, analyzing the applicability of anti-SLAPP protections, the sufficiency of Coomer's evidence, and the scope of the litigation privilege.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defamation claim against Giuliani | Statements were false, made with malice | They were based on reliable info; no malice | Sufficient likelihood for trial; not dismissed |
| Actual malice requirement | Evidence supports Giuliani acted recklessly | Believed statements true, no malice | Plaintiff showed enough for actual malice at this stage |
| Litigation privilege defense | Privilege does not extend to Giuliani's press remarks | Comments related, and thus protected | Privilege does not apply; not protected |
| Civil conspiracy claim | There was coordination among defendants | No evidence of agreement; agents of same entity | No case met; conspiracy claim dismissed |
| Injunctive relief | Should not be dismissed procedurally | Not ripe as substantive claim | Denial of dismissal affirmed (not a separate claim) |
Key Cases Cited
- No binding precedents with official reporter citations were directly cited in this opinion; analysis primarily referenced the court’s own prior decision in Coomer v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., 2024 COA 35.