Eve Carson v. Stacy Palombo
18 N.E.3d 1036
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Eve Carson operated a YouTube channel posting videos criticizing the investigation of her sister‑in‑law’s 1981 murder; one video (“Extortion Drama”) drew comments from Stacy (a Massachusetts resident related to a police officer involved in the investigation).
- Stacy commented that Eve was “an angry ex wife whose kids have been taken from her for god known reasons,” and made other comments not initially pleaded by Eve.
- Eve sued Stacy in Indiana for defamation per se, defamation per quod, and invasion of privacy by false light; Stacy raised truth as a defense and moved for partial/complete summary judgment.
- On a prior interlocutory appeal this Court held Stacy’s pleaded words did not sufficiently impute criminal conduct and ordered the trial court to enter partial summary judgment for Stacy on defamation per se (excluding unpleaded comments from consideration).
- Eve sought leave to amend her complaint on remand to add omitted Stacy comments; the trial court denied leave under the law‑of‑the‑case doctrine and entered partial summary judgment dismissing defamation per se and later granted summary judgment for Stacy on the remaining claims.
- The trial court’s summary judgment on defamation per quod rested on Eve’s failure to prove special (pecuniary) damages causally linked to Stacy’s statements; the false‑light claim failed because Eve’s own YouTube videos placed her in similar light to Stacy’s comment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court abused discretion by denying leave to amend complaint after remand | Carson argued she should be allowed to add Stacy’s omitted comments as "additional context" to defeat partial summary judgment | Stacy argued law‑of‑the‑case bars adding facts known but omitted earlier; prior opinion excluded unpleaded statements | Denied — court applied law‑of‑the‑case: facts Eve sought to add were not new and amendment was properly refused |
| Summary judgment on defamation per quod (requirement of special damages) | Carson claimed itemized expenses (investigation costs, PI fees, lost wages, personal expenses) were damages from defamation | Stacy argued expenses lacked nexus to the statements; PI/litigation expenses are not recoverable as damages under the American Rule | Affirmed — Eve failed to show special pecuniary damages as natural and proximate result of the statements; PI/litigation costs not compensable damages |
| Summary judgment on invasion of privacy — false light (element: false & highly offensive publicity) | Carson argued Stacy’s statements placed her in a false, offensive light to the public | Stacy argued the pleaded statement was not false because Eve’s own videos conveyed the same image; Eve also relied on an unpleaded comment | Affirmed — Eve’s own YouTube content showed no falsity; unpleaded comments could not be considered; false‑light claim failed |
Key Cases Cited
- CBR Event Decorators, Inc. v. Gates, 4 N.E.3d 1210 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (describing law‑of‑the‑case doctrine and its purpose)
- Pinnacle Media, L.L.C. v. Metro. Dev. Comm’n of Marion Cnty., 868 N.E.2d 894 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (explaining remand application where new facts are elicited)
- Asklar v. Gilb, 9 N.E.3d 165 (Ind. 2014) (summary judgment standard)
- Baker v. Tremco Inc., 917 N.E.2d 650 (Ind. 2009) (defamation per quod requires special damages)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Radcliff, 987 N.E.2d 121 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (special damages must be natural and proximate consequence)
- Lorapex, LLC v. MPI Release Techs., LLC, 964 N.E.2d 806 (Ind. 2012) (American Rule on attorney fees; fees generally not recoverable as damages)
- Newman v. Jewish Cmty. Ctr. Ass’n of Indianapolis, 875 N.E.2d 729 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (false‑light claim fails where published information is not false)
- Branham v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc., 744 N.E.2d 514 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (adopting Restatement standard for false‑light invasion of privacy)