Ernst v. Kauffman, 50 F. Supp. 3d 553

Background

Plaintiffs Barbara Ernst and Barbara Supeno, an openly gay couple living in Addison, VT, allege neighbors and town officials harassed and discriminated against them, including defamatory publications and adverse zoning/permitting actions.
An anonymous nine‑page letter titled “The TRUTH About the BARBARAS” was distributed in April 2011 to town residents and newspapers; plaintiffs allege Carol Kauffman (with Jeff Kauffman and Linda Carrigan’s input) authored it and John Carrigan handed out copies.
Carol Kauffman allegedly read portions of that letter at several Selectboard meetings in 2011; John Carrigan later presented a document of public records to the Selectboard in November 2011.
Plaintiffs also allege Carol Kauffman sent a hoax letter to their attorney implying they would not pay him.
Plaintiffs sued in Vermont Superior Court asserting state torts (defamation, false light, tortious interference) against the Kauffmans and Carrigans and VFHA and constitutional claims against Jeff Kauffman and the Town; the case was removed to federal court based on the First Amendment claim.
Defendants moved under Vermont’s anti‑SLAPP statute (12 V.S.A. § 1041) to strike portions of the complaint, moved to dismiss the VFHA (Count IV) as time‑barred, and Jeff Kauffman moved to dismiss the tortious interference claim (Count III) as to him.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of anti‑SLAPP motion	Plaintiffs suggested motions were untimely as filed >60 days after original complaint	Defendants argued timeliness measured from the complaint; motions were timely as to amended complaint	Court construed "the complaint" to include the amended complaint; Carrigans’ motion timely
Whether anonymous letter/public distribution is protected activity under § 1041	Plaintiffs: letter targeted private matters and was defamatory, not a matter of public interest	Defendants: distribution concerned town issues/public forum and thus falls within § 1041 protections	Court: anonymous letter distribution was not sufficiently connected to a public issue; anti‑SLAPP protection denied for claims based on the anonymous letter
Whether Selectboard statements & documents before official body are protected and whether plaintiffs met burden to show they were devoid of factual support	Plaintiffs: statements (reading letter; document presentation) were defamatory and unsupported	Defendants: statements made at official proceedings or submitted to Selectboard fall squarely under § 1041(i)(1) protection	Court: statements/readings at Selectboard and the November 2011 document are protected; plaintiffs failed to show they were devoid of factual support — motions to strike granted as to statements/readings and the document; but the hoax letter to attorney is not protected and motion to strike denied as to it
Whether VFHA discrimination claim (Count IV) is time‑barred	Plaintiffs: injuries are mixed (economic and nonpersonal), so longer limitations apply to some claims	Defendants: VFHA claim is essentially personal injury and barred by 3‑year limitations	Court: nature of alleged harms is mixed; some injuries governed by six‑year statute and claim not dismissed on limitations grounds — motion denied
Whether Count III (tortious interference) states claim against Jeff Kauffman	Plaintiffs: Kauffman assisted publication of the anonymous letter which interfered with plaintiffs’ business expectancies	Defendants: plaintiffs fail to plead that Jeff Kauffman knew of any specific business relationship or expectancy	Court: knowledge of a specific relationship or expectancy is required; plaintiffs did not plead that for Jeff Kauffman — Count III dismissed as to him

Key Cases Cited

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (establishes limited/all‑purpose public‑figure distinctions for defamation law)
Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111 (private parties cannot be transformed into public figures by defendants’ publications)
Weinberg v. Feisel, 110 Cal. App. 4th 1122 (requires closeness between challenged statements and asserted public interest for anti‑SLAPP protection)
Wilbanks v. Wolk, 121 Cal. App. 4th 883 (factors for determining whether statement concerns public interest)
Egri v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 174 Vt. 443 (statute‑of‑limitations analysis looks to nature of harm; mixed claims can be governed by different limitations)
Fitzgerald v. Congleton, 155 Vt. 283 (distinguishes personal injury vs economic harms for choosing applicable limitations)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard — plausibility required to survive dismissal)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard — requiring more than labels and conclusions)
J.A. Morrissey, Inc. v. Smejkal, 188 Vt. 245 (elements required to state tortious interference claim)