INFINITE ENERGY, INC. v. Pardue
310 Ga. App. 355
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Infinite Energy, Inc. sued Pardue, Hartman, Simons, Spielman & Wood, LLP, and Poston Communications for defamation over a press release accusing Infinite Energy of deception.
- The press release stated Pardue, on behalf of HSSW, filed a federal suit alleging Infinite Energy defrauded Korean-American dry cleaners by high fixed rates after Hurricane Katrina.
- The press release, quoted in the complaint, claimed Infinite Energy engaged in deliberate misinformation and misled customers to lock them into inflated rates.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint, concluding the statements were non-actionable opinions; Infinite Energy appealed.
- On de novo review, the Georgia Court of Appeals held the statements could be interpreted as defamatory facts and were not mere opinions.
- The court reversed, determining issues of public-figure status and statute of limitations also affected the defamation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the statements actionable as defamation per se? | Infinite Energy contends the statements accuse it of deceit in its business practices, constituting slander per se. | Defendants argue the statements express opinion and cannot be proven false. | Statements actionable; not mere opinions; slander per se. |
| Is Infinite Energy a public figure for defamation fault analysis? | Infinite Energy should not be treated as a general or limited public figure. | Infinite Energy is a public figure due to its role in the class action and media coverage. | Not a general or limited public figure; fault standard remains ordinary negligence. |
| Did the complaint adequately allege malice for a defamation claim at dismissal? | The complaint alleges malice by Pardue and by all defendants in attempting to publish the statements. | Malice is not required to be pled at dismissal for private-figure defamation. | Sufficient allegations of malice; complaint states a defamation claim. |
| Is the action timely under OCGA § 9-3-33 despite publication in 2008 and filing in 2009? | Pleadings filed on the first anniversary of publication are timely under the amended statute; Jacobs v. Shaw is distinguishable. | Under Jacobs v. Shaw, slander claims must be timely filed on or before the anniversary date. | Timely; OCGA § 1-3-1(d)(3) applies, first day not counted; Jacobs overruled to extent conflicting. |
Key Cases Cited
- McGowan v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., 281 Ga. 169, 637 S.E.2d 27 (Ga. 2006) (guidelines for evaluating 12(b)(6) motions; pleadings construed in plaintiff's favor)
- Anderson v. Flake, 267 Ga. 498, 480 S.E.2d 10 (Ga. 1997) (notice pleading standard for defamation analyses)
- Scouten v. Amerisave Mortgage Corp., 283 Ga. 72, 656 S.E.2d 820 (Ga. 2008) (defamation pleading standards and context)
- Mathis v. Cannon, 276 Ga. 16, 573 S.E.2d 376 (Ga. 2002) (three-part test for public figure determination and fault)
- Riddle v. Golden Isles Broadcasting, 275 Ga.App. 701, 621 S.E.2d 822 (Ga. App. 2005) (public figure analysis and falsity standards)
- Gettner v. Fitzgerald, 297 Ga.App. 258, 677 S.E.2d 149 (Ga. App. 2009) (defamation elements and proof standards)
- Gast v. Brittain, 277 Ga. 340, 589 S.E.2d 63 (Ga. 2003) (defamation per se; actionable statements)
- Ledford v. Meyer, 249 Ga. 407, 290 S.E.2d 908 (Ga. 1982) (pleading requirements in defamation cases)
- Jacobs v. Shaw, 219 Ga.App. 425, 465 S.E.2d 460 (Ga. App. 1995) (timeliness of slander claims; anniversary date rule (overruled here))
- McCandliss v. Cox Enterprises, 265 Ga.App. 377, 593 S.E.2d 856 (Ga. App. 2004) (timeliness and pleading standards in defamation)