326 So.3d 944
La. Ct. App.2021Background
- Plaintiffs George Eric (Eric) Hatfield (a Caddo Parish constable and periodic candidate for sheriff), his partner Amy Leigh Senn, and their minor children sued defendants including Danny Lawler (publisher of The Inquisitor), his brothers, and deputy Bobby Herring for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress over public criticism (e.g., website LyingEric.com, billboards, social-media posts, and a "dancing Santa") during election-related disputes.
- Lawler organized the LyingEric.com campaign and published articles and social-media commentary asserting Hatfield was unfit for office; plaintiffs alleged a civil conspiracy and other coordinated acts.
- Defendants filed special motions to strike under Louisiana’s anti‑SLAPP statute, La. C.C.P. art. 971, asserting their speech was in furtherance of petition/free‑speech on a public issue; the trial court granted the motions, dismissed claims with prejudice, and awarded attorney fees to defendants.
- Plaintiffs moved to recuse the trial judge; that motion was denied. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal, denial of recusal, and sought sanctions against defense counsel for allegedly frivolous filings.
- On appeal, the court reviewed de novo the Article 971 rulings: it applied the two‑step burden shift (mover shows the speech is protected public‑issue speech; plaintiff must show a probability of success on each claim). The court held Hatfield is a public official and Senn a limited‑purpose public figure.
- The appellate court affirmed dismissal: defendants’ statements were public‑issue protected speech; plaintiffs failed to show a probability of prevailing because they did not prove "actual malice" for defamation/IIED against public figures, nor specific actionable invasion of privacy facts. The case was remanded to fix additional appellate attorney fees under Article 971(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recusal of trial judge | Trial court applied wrong (or insufficiently articulated) objective recusal test | Judge's denial was supported by record; no evidence of bias | Denial affirmed; no abuse of discretion (Rippo objective standard satisfied by record) |
| Whether speech falls under La. C.C.P. art. 971 (public issue/protected) | Statements not fully supported by affidavits; not all speech was public‑issue commentary | Speech concerned fitness for public office and was made in public forums (website, billboards, social media) | Defendants met prima facie burden; statements were protected public‑issue speech under Art. 971 |
| Probability of success on merits (defamation, IIED, invasion of privacy) | Plaintiffs argued statements were false and caused harm | Defendants argued statements were opinion/hyperbole about public officials/figures; no proof of actual malice or actionable privacy invasion | Plaintiffs failed to show probability of success: Hatfield (public official) and Senn (limited‑purpose public figure) required actual malice and did not prove it; IIED and privacy claims likewise failed |
| Sanctions against defense counsel | Defense counsel filed frivolous sanction motions causing costs | Sanctions must be sought and adjudicated at trial court; no proper trial‑court ruling to appeal | Denied as procedurally improper on appeal (no trial‑court ruling requesting sanctions) |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (establishes actual‑malice standard for public‑official defamation claims)
- Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (U.S. 1967) (extends actual‑malice standard to public figures)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974) (limited‑purpose public figure doctrine)
- Rippo v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 905 (U.S. 2017) (objective standard for judicial recusal)
- Kennedy v. Sheriff of E. Baton Rouge, 935 So. 2d 669 (La. 2006) (content, form, context test for public‑concern speech)
- Wainwright v. Tyler, 253 So. 3d 203 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2018) (Article 971 anti‑SLAPP framework and two‑step analysis)
- Quinlan v. Sugar‑Gold, 293 So. 3d 722 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2020) (Article 971 used to screen meritless claims early)
- Sassone v. Elder, 626 So. 2d 345 (La. 1993) (defamation elements and reputation tort analysis)