Dinkins v. Schinzel, 362 F. Supp. 3d 916

Background

In Aug. 2015 Schinzel won an eBay auction for a parcel listed by Dinkins, paid $1,325, and received a deed; she later discovered $206 in back taxes owed on the property that Dinkins agreed but failed to pay.
Schinzel researched Dinkins online and posted multiple reports on RipoffReport.com calling him a scam artist, thief, criminal, and accusing him of being kicked off eBay and of harassing consumers.
Dinkins sued Schinzel (libel per se; libel by implication; intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; IIED; civil assault), and Schinzel counterclaimed (fraud; breach of contract; breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; public disclosure of private facts; libel per se).
Both parties moved for summary judgment; the court considered evidentiary objections but applied the Rule 56 standard requiring that proffered evidence be admissible in substance at trial.
The court resolved several claims on summary judgment and left others for trial; it ordered a mandatory settlement conference before a magistrate judge.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Dinkins)	Defendant's Argument (Schinzel)	Held
Libel per se	Schinzel published false factual statements (criminal, thief, scam artist) that harmed his business; he seeks summary judgment.	Her posts are true or nonactionable opinion.	Denied for both: factual disputes about truth and context preclude summary judgment; question for jury.
Libel by implication	Dinkins says some true statements were published to imply defamatory facts.	Schinzel argues statements were true or opinion.	Granted for Schinzel: plaintiff conceded truth of the statements, so defamation-by-implication fails.
Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage	Dinkins says her posts disrupted his real-estate business and prospective deals.	Schinzel says he cannot show interference with a specific prospective relationship, intent, or actual harm.	Granted for Schinzel: Dinkins failed to produce admissible evidence of actual harm (hearsay exhibits excluded).
Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)	Dinkins alleges combined harassment (calls, texts, emails, RipoffReport posts) caused severe distress.	Schinzel contends conduct not extreme/outrageous and injury unsupported.	Granted for Schinzel: plaintiff offered only conclusory statements about stress; no objectively verifiable evidence of severe distress.
Fraud (counterclaim)	—	Schinzel alleges Dinkins misrepresented ownership, licensure, and failed to disclose tax lien/encumbrances.	Dinkins' summary-judgment motion denied: genuine dispute (e.g., original eBay listing content) precludes judgment.
Breach of contract / breach of implied covenant (counterclaims)	—	Schinzel contends the auction, emails, and deed created an enforceable contract and Dinkins breached duties.	Denied for Dinkins: factual questions about existence and terms of contract remain.
Public disclosure of private facts (counterclaim)	—	Schinzel claims Dinkins publicly disclosed her mother's death to harass her.	Granted for Dinkins: the fact was already publicly available (online obituary), so no liability.
Libel per se (Schinzel's counterclaim)	—	Schinzel claims Dinkins published false statements accusing her of stalking, mental instability, and being fired.	Denied for both: factual disputes about truthfulness remain; jury question.

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary-judgment burden shifting principles)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary-judgment standard where credibility and evidence for defamation evaluated)
Orr v. Bank of America, 285 F.3d 764 (authentication/admissibility of evidence at summary judgment)
Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Virtual Educ. Software, Inc., 125 Nev. 374 (Nevada defamation principles)
Leavitt v. Leisure Sports, Inc., 103 Nev. 81 (defamation per se and related Nevada law)
Miller v. Jones, 114 Nev. 1291 (standards for IIED damages evidence under Nevada law)