Larry Klayman v. City Pages, 650 F. App'x 744

Larry Klayman (public figure) sued six defendants (authors and media outlets) for defamation and defamation by implication based on three internet articles reporting on: (1) Ohio child‑custody proceedings where a magistrate found he had “inappropriately touched” children and the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the finding; and (2) Florida Bar disciplinary proceedings that resulted in a public reprimand for Klayman related to a client settlement.
Klayman pleaded six counts (three defamation, three defamation‑by‑implication) and sought over $15 million in damages and punitive damages.
Defendants moved to dismiss (twice) and later for summary judgment; district court granted summary judgment for all defendants, found some statements true, ruled Voice Media Group and Avidor did not publish, and held no clear and convincing evidence of actual malice.
Klayman moved to disqualify the district judge based on allegedly biased remarks (literary quotations, admonitions, sanctions threats); the district court denied disqualification and was affirmed on appeal.
Klayman raised additional theories on appeal (e.g., Avidor blog post as basis for defamation‑by‑implication) that were not raised below; appellate court declined to consider those arguments as forfeited.
Court concluded links and quotations to publicly available court and Bar documents undermined any inference of actual malice; denial of motion to perfect punitive damages rendered moot by summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judicial disqualification	District judge’s literary quotes, admonitions, and threat of sanctions show bias making fair judgment impossible	Remarks arose in judicial proceedings; not from extrajudicial sources; insufficient for recusal	Denied; no abuse of discretion; remarks not deep‑seated bias
Defamation (truth/falsity & actual malice) — City Pages (Sept. 28)	Article gave false impression Klayman committed/was convicted of child sexual abuse; omitted exculpatory facts	Article quoted Ohio Court of Appeals and magistrate findings; belief statements were true; no clear & convincing evidence of actual malice	Summary judgment for defendants: statements not shown false and no actual malice by clear and convincing evidence
Defamation (truth & republication) — Phoenix Times (Feb. 22)	Article repeated that Klayman was found to have “inappropriately touched” children and republished Sept. 28 article via link	Statements were not false; linking to publicly available content is not republication	Affirmed summary judgment; plaintiff did not contest below and waived issues
Defamation — Phoenix Times (June 18) re: Florida Bar reprimand	Article implied reprimand was for taking client money and never doing work; that was inaccurate	Article relied on public filings and linked sources; believed statements were true	Summary judgment for defendants: no clear and convincing evidence of actual malice

Thomas v. Tenneco Packaging Co., 293 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2002) (standard of review for recusal decisions)
Christo v. Padgett, 223 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2000) (recusal requires objective showing of bias)
In re Walker, 532 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2008) (extrajudicial source requirement for disqualification)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial remarks during proceedings seldom suffice unless showing deep‑seated antagonism)
Jews For Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2008) (elements of defamation and defamation by implication under Florida law)
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) (public‑figure defamation requires actual malice)
Michel v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 816 F.3d 686 (11th Cir. 2016) (actual malice requires more than poor journalistic practices; must show purposeful avoidance of truth)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard and proof by clear and convincing evidence)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (First Amendment actual malice standard)