Hogan v. Winder
762 F.3d 1096
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Hogan was a consultant for UTOPIA and was terminated after he raised concerns about favoritism in contract awards. He threatened litigation and settlement demanding removal of UTOPIA’s executive director and $219,000.
- UTOPIA’s counsel characterized Hogan’s demands as “blackmail” and “extortion” in correspondence; both sides filed litigation and motions related to sealing court records; UTOPIA voluntarily dismissed its state action and motions to seal.
- A KSL article (bylined “Richard Burwash”) and a FierceTelecom piece republished its substance, reporting that Hogan was "accused of extortion" and that his contract ended for "performance issues." The KSL byline was later revealed to be a pseudonym used by West Valley City Mayor Michael Winder.
- Hogan alleged the articles caused reputational harm, loss of employment opportunities, and emotional distress, and sued for defamation, defamation by implication, false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, § 1983 civil-rights violations, and § 1985 civil conspiracy; the district court dismissed all claims.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reviewed plausibility of Hogan’s pleadings, evaluated context for allegedly defamatory statements, and examined whether defendants acted under color of state law or conspired to deter court participation.
- The court affirmed dismissal: it held the articles were not defamatory or tortiously offensive when read in context, and Hogan failed to plead state-action or the § 1985 conspiracy elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defamation / defamation by implication | KSL and FierceTelecom falsely suggested Hogan committed extortion and mischaracterized job performance, harming reputation | Articles accurately reported source statements and context; terms like “extortion” were rhetorical; performance allegations were vague and nonactionable | Dismissed — statements not defamatory as matter of law given context and substantial truth |
| Headline liability | Headlines (and homepage excerpts) conveyed criminal accusation and are actionable even if body clarifies | Headline must be read with article; reasonable reader would seek context; excerpt did not mislead | Dismissed — headline not actionable in context; even if isolated, plaintiff not named in headline |
| False light / IIED | Publication cast Hogan in a false, offensive light and caused severe emotional distress | Statements were true or substantially accurate, vague, or rhetorical; did not meet high outrage or falsity standards | Dismissed — no false light or outrageous conduct established; negligence/falsity not pleaded plausibly |
| § 1983 / § 1985 (state action & conspiracy) | Winder and UTOPIA actors acted under color of state law and conspired to silence/harm Hogan for suing | Winder acted anonymously and not in mayoral capacity; no municipal policy or meeting-of-minds to deter court participation alleged | Dismissed — insufficient pleadings that defendants acted under color of state law or formed a § 1985 conspiratorial intent to deter court attendance |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for federal pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard and drawing reasonable inferences)
- West v. Thomson Newspapers, 872 P.2d 999 (Utah 1994) (elements of defamation and defamation by implication under Utah law)
- Brehany v. Nordstrom, Inc., 812 P.2d 49 (Utah 1991) (truth as absolute defense to defamation in Utah)
- Greenbelt Coop. Pub. Ass’n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (1970) (rhetorical hyperbole and nonactionable meaning)
- Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (1985) (speech on matters of public concern and First Amendment considerations in defamation)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (§ 1983 requires action under color of state law)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires a policy or custom causing the injury)
- Haddle v. Garrison, 525 U.S. 121 (1998) (scope of § 1985 protections and requirement that injury relate to court attendance/testimony)