387 F. Supp. 3d 1306
U.S. Cir. Ct.2019Background
- Pro se plaintiff Winfred July sued Terminix for libel, alleging Terminix submitted documents in arbitration stating he was caught on camera urinating in a customer’s backyard, which he denies.
- Plaintiff attached Bates‑stamped documents (including a Corrective Action Form) that Terminix produced in prior arbitration and emailed to the arbitrator and plaintiff.
- Terminix moved to dismiss the original and amended complaints arguing pleading defects and that communications in arbitration and related proceedings are absolutely privileged.
- Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the amended complaint because statements submitted in arbitration were protected by Alabama’s absolute litigation privilege.
- The court construed plaintiff’s “motion to amend” as the operative amended complaint and found plaintiff’s claim targets documents submitted to the arbitrator (not unemployment agency communications).
- Because the allegedly defamatory material was submitted during a quasi‑judicial arbitration and was relevant to that proceeding, the court held it absolutely privileged and dismissed the libel claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amended complaint pleads a cognizable libel claim | July contends Terminix published false written statements (to arbitrator and unemployment agency) that harmed his reputation and employment prospects | Terminix contends the amended pleading still fails or, if construed properly, the challenged publications occurred in arbitration or unemployment proceedings and are privileged | Court found amended complaint gave fair notice of a libel claim but clarified the alleged publication was to the arbitrator; claim dismissed on privilege grounds |
| Whether statements submitted to the arbitrator are protected by absolute litigation privilege | July argues documents submitted to arbitrator are actionable libel because statements are false and caused harm | Terminix argues statements made in arbitration are (quasi‑)judicial and absolutely privileged under Alabama law | Held: Absolute litigation privilege applies to statements submitted in arbitration; dismissal warranted |
| Whether communications to the Alabama Unemployment Compensation Division can support libel claim | July suggested similar words were sent to unemployment agency and were part of a pattern harming him | Terminix argued communications to unemployment proceedings are absolutely privileged | Court determined plaintiff’s theory centers on arbitration submissions; it did not rely on or rule on unemployment communications because plaintiff framed arbitration as the basis for libel |
| Whether internal creation/distribution of Corrective Action Form supports libel (statute of limitations/publication) | July pointed to internal Corrective Action Form (and attached documents) as evidence that the accusation is false | Terminix argued any claim based on internal distribution is time‑barred and lacks publication to a third party | Court did not reach these arguments because absolute privilege for arbitration submissions resolved the case |
Key Cases Cited
- Dolgencorp, LLC v. Spence, 224 So. 3d 173 (Ala. 2016) (elements of defamation under Alabama law)
- O'Barr v. Feist, 296 So. 2d 152 (Ala. 1974) (statements in judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged)
- Webster v. Byrd, 494 So. 2d 31 (Ala. 1986) (absolute privilege extends to quasi‑judicial administrative proceedings)
- Barnett v. Mobile County Personal Bd., 536 So. 2d 46 (Ala. 1988) (exception for irrelevant, impertinent, voluntary imputations)
- Hollander v. Nichols, 19 So. 3d 184 (Ala. 2009) (application of litigation privilege to statements made in course of judicial proceedings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must present plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not accepted as true on motion to dismiss)
- Little v. City of N. Miami, 805 F.2d 962 (11th Cir. 1986) (standard for motions to dismiss: plaintiff entitled to offer evidence if claim sufficiently pled)