Juan Antonio Coronado, Francisco Soliz Ramirez, Roberto Rivera III, and Ruben Contreras v. Freedom Communications, Inc. D/B/A the Brownsville Herald and Valley Morning Star
13-13-00525-CV
Tex. App.Sep 30, 2015Background
- In 2008 Peter Zavaletta’s campaign purchased full-page ads in Freedom Communications’ newspapers criticizing Cameron County DA Armando Villalobos, including a chart of 103 child-related cases and statements that Villalobos “couldn’t even send one defendant to prison.”
- The chart listed entries for appellants Coronado, Ramirez, Rivera, and Contreras showing their cases were “declined at intake.”
- Plaintiffs sued Freedom, Zavaletta, and another defendant for defamation and invasion of privacy by disclosure, later adding claims for exemplary damages.
- After an initial denial of summary judgment (later vacated because the trial judge who denied it was implicated in a bribery plea), the trial court ultimately granted Freedom’s second renewed traditional summary judgment.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding (1) the political ads constitute nonactionable rhetorical hyperbole/opinion as to defamation, and (2) the ads addressed a matter of legitimate public concern (prosecutorial discretion/public corruption), defeating the invasion-of-privacy claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defamation — whether ads asserted verifiable false facts | Plaintiffs: ads falsely and maliciously reported allegations about them and harmed reputation | Freedom: ads are rhetorical hyperbole/opinion not subject to objective verification | Court: Ads are rhetorical hyperbole/opinion; summary judgment for Freedom affirmed |
| Truth / fair-report privilege (burden and applicability) | Plaintiffs: reporting of allegations was false and not protected | Freedom: truthful reporting and/or protected reporting on public records and public officials | Not necessary to decide — alternative unchallenged ground (hyperbole/public concern) supports judgment |
| Invasion of privacy — whether matters were of legitimate public concern | Plaintiffs: accusations were private and not of legitimate public interest because no underlying facts of criminality | Freedom: prosecutorial discretion and alleged failure to prosecute crimes are matters of public concern | Court: Speech concerned prosecutorial discretion/public corruption; summary judgment for Freedom affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Freedom Commc’ns, Inc. v. Coronado, 296 S.W.3d 790 (Tex. App. 2009) (prior appellate decision describing the ads and proceedings)
- Freedom Communs., Inc. v. Coronado, 372 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. 2012) (Texas Supreme Court vacating prior appellate judgment due to judge disqualification)
- Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (standard of review for traditional summary judgment)
- Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (summary judgment burden principles)
- American Broad. Cos. v. Gill, 6 S.W.3d 19 (Tex. App. 1999) (rhetorical hyperbole and nonactionable opinion)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (opinion/rhetorical hyperbole doctrine)
- Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986) (burden on plaintiff to show falsity for matters of public concern)
- Jarvis v. Rocanville Corp., 298 S.W.3d 305 (Tex. App. 2009) (unchallenged grounds for summary judgment may be affirmed)
- Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. 1995) (public concern test for privacy/publication claims)
- Klentzman v. Brady, 456 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. App. 2014) (speech about government officials/public concern)