765 F.3d 855
8th Cir.2014Background
- Doe and Hagar had a multi-year romantic relationship beginning in 1983.
- In 1988 Doe believed Hagar was the father of her child; Hagar denied paternity.
- Doe and Hagar executed an Agreement in 1989 where Hagar would provide support in exchange for Doe’s silence and paternity testing future, restricting disclosure.
- Doe gave birth in February 1989; the child died days later; paternity testing never occurred.
- In 2011 Hagar published Red, asserting Doe extorted him by claiming pregnancy; Doe sued in Iowa state court; case removed to federal court and summary judgment was granted for Hagar on all claims.
- The district court’s decision was reviewed de novo for defamation and related state-law claims under diversity jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Libel per se viability | Doe: libel per se exists; statements defamatory as matter of law | Hagar: not libel per se; extrinsic facts required | Doe’s libel per se claim survives summary judgment |
| Publication element | Doe: statements published to third parties | Hagar: self-publication defense applies | Material issue of publication facts for jury |
| Defamatory nature and concerning plaintiff | Doe: statements imply lies and extortion about pregnancy | Hagar: statements truthful gist; not necessarily defamatory | Gist deemed defamatory; jury should decide substantial truth |
| Breach of contract (confidentiality) | Doe: Red disclosed terms of financial support breach | Hagar: reference to support not a disclosed term | Ambiguity resolved for jury; potential breach by disclosure of payments remanded |
| Breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing | Doe: Hagar’s disclosures undermine benefits of Agreement | Hagar: statements did not deprive benefits | Granted summary judgment affirming no breach on this theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiesau v. Bantz, 686 N.W.2d 164 (Iowa 2004) (prima facie libel per se elements; defamation per se defined)
- Schlegel v. Ottumwa Courier, Inc., 585 N.W.2d 217 (Iowa 1998) (libel per se; defamatory statements regarded as matter of law)
- Johnson v. Nickerson, 542 N.W.2d 506 (Iowa 1996) (accusation of criminal conduct defamatory per se)
- Ball v. Taylor, 416 F.3d 915 (8th Cir. 2005) (‘of and concerning’ standard; extrinsic facts may show subject)
- United States v. Simmons, 964 F.2d 763 (8th Cir. 1992) (issue not raised on appeal waived; publication element guidance)
- Behr v. Meredith Corp., 414 N.W.2d 339 (Iowa 1987) (substantial truth defense in defamation)
- Beal Sav. Bank v. Sommer, 865 N.E.2d 1210 (N.Y. 2007) (contract interpretation; ambiguity and extrinsic evidence)