0:14-cv-61264
S.D. Fla.Oct 15, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Surrogate Dibble sues Defendants William Avrich and Above Avrich, Inc. for defamation online based on statements published on transportreviews.com about Dibble’s credibility and business conduct.
- Plaintiff alleges Avrich published a stream of invective between April 9 and May 12, 2014, including statements implying Dibble is not a real person and is untrustworthy.
- The first three counts are treated as defamation (libel and slander) and the fourth as intentional infliction of emotional distress; the complaint targets online publications accessible in Florida.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (and implicitly 12(b)(1) for jurisdiction) arguing lack of actionable statements and insufficient damages to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement.
- The Court denies the motion to dismiss as to the defamation claims but grants leave to amend the complaint to satisfy federal jurisdictional amount requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the defamation claims are plausibly stated | Dibble argues statements on transportreviews.com are false and actionable | Avrich contends statements are non-actionable rhetoric | Defamation claims plausibly stated |
| Whether the amount in controversy meets 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requirements | Damages exceed $75,000 in good faith | Damages not adequately supported for jurisdiction | Motion denied for lack of jurisdiction; leave to amend granted to satisfy amount-in-controversy |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 F.3d 554 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (pleading standard requires plausible claims and reject conclusory statements)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading; not merely legal conclusions)
- Fortson v. Colangelo, 434 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (S.D. Fla. 2006) (false statement requirement for defamation; context matters)
- Horsley v. Rivera, 292 F.3d 695 (11th Cir. 2002) (distinguishing fact from opinion in defamation analysis)
- Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall, 39 So.3d 1201 (Fla. 2010) (online publication can be actionable libel under Florida law)
- Presley v. Graham, 936 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (M.D. Ala. 2013) (pleading stage possibility that online statements imply facts)