larue/tucker v. Brown
235 Ariz. 440
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Plaintiffs Mindi Larue and Jeremy Tucker sued David and Sarah Brown for online defamation arising from two RipoffReport posts in November 2008 that named Plaintiffs and alleged child sexual abuse.
- Defendants posted follow-up replies/comments in March and June 2009 that reiterated and expanded on the November allegations and responded to readers.
- Plaintiffs filed their complaint on December 23, 2009 (just over one year after the November posts).
- Defendants moved to dismiss and later sought a jury instruction that statements published before December 23, 2008 could not be considered under the statute of limitations. The trial court refused and instructed that republication restarts the one-year limitations period.
- A jury found Defendants liable and awarded compensatory and punitive damages; Defendants appealed arguing the suit was time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the single-publication rule apply to Internet publications? | Single-publication rule does not extend in a way that defeats timely claims based on later author identification or updates. | Internet posts are single publications; statute of limitations runs from initial posting. | The single-publication rule does apply to Internet publications; statute generally runs from first posting. |
| Did Plaintiffs’ discovery delay defer accrual under the discovery rule? | Plaintiffs claim they did not know who authored posts until 2009, so accrual was delayed. | Plaintiffs saw the posts and suspected authorship by November 2008; discovery rule not applicable. | Discovery rule does not apply; Plaintiffs knew of the posts (and suspected authorship) in November 2008. |
| Do replies/updates on a website constitute a republication that restarts the statute of limitations? | Later posts (March/June 2009) were substantive updates/republications restarting accrual. | Later posts were not new publications but continuations of the original single publication; limitations had run. | The March and June 2009 replies substantively altered and supplemented the original posts and thus were republications that restarted the one-year limitations period. |
| Was Plaintiffs’ action time-barred? | Plaintiffs argued timely because of republication and discovery timing. | Defendants argued barred because initial November 2008 posts were more than one year before filing. | Not time-barred: the court found republication in 2009, so the claim was timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cook v. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, 232 Ariz. 173 (App. 2013) (standard for de novo review of statute-of-limitations accrual questions)
- Boatman v. Samaritan Health Servs., Inc., 168 Ariz. 207 (1991) (defamation accrues at publication)
- Lim v. Superior Court in and for Pima Cnty., 126 Ariz. 481 (App. 1980) (publication starts accrual)
- Glaze v. Marcus, 151 Ariz. 538 (App. 1986) (one-year statute for defamation claims)
- Oja v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 440 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2006) (single-publication rule purpose and application)
- Phillips v. World Publ'g Co., 822 F. Supp. 2d 1114 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (plaintiff cannot invoke discovery rule where pleadings show knowledge of statements)
- Pippen v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, 734 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2013) (applying single-publication rule to internet publications)
- Yeager v. Bowlin, 693 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2012) (website statement not republished unless substantively altered or directed to new audience)