275 So. 3d 812
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiff Francisco Javier Ospina Baraya sued authors, publishers, filmmakers, and production companies alleging defamatory portrayals of him as a money launderer in the nonfiction book The Infiltrator and the film based on it.
- Book and movie defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Baraya failed to serve the presuit notice required by Fla. Stat. § 770.01.
- The circuit court denied the motions, accepting Baraya's position that § 770.01 does not apply to books or films and that the defendants are non-media.
- Defendants petitioned this court for writs of certiorari to quash the denial; certiorari is available for circuit court denials based on failure to give presuit notice under § 770.01.
- The district court reviewed Florida precedent and statutory construction and concluded § 770.01 applies only to news media (press/broadcast/new media performing news functions), not to books or movies; therefore certiorari relief was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fla. Stat. § 770.01's presuit notice requirement applies to books and movies | § 770.01 does not apply to books/movies; defendants are non-media | Books and films are "other medium" under the statute and require presuit notice | § 770.01 is limited to news-media defendants; books and movies are non-media for § 770.01 purposes |
| Whether the circuit court's denial of dismissal for lack of presuit notice warrants certiorari | Circuit court correctly interpreted § 770.01 as inapplicable | Circuit court departed from established law; certiorari should be granted | Denied: circuit court followed controlling precedent interpreting § 770.01 as press-only; no departure from essential requirements of law |
| Proper scope of the statutory phrase "other medium" in § 770.01 | Narrow: excludes book and film publishers | Broad: includes any medium (books, films) that publishes defamatory material | Interpreted ejusdem generis and in pari materia to restrict "other medium" to media like broadcast/newspapers/blogs that further speedy dissemination of news |
| Whether technological change requires judicial expansion of § 770.01 | § 770.01 should not be judicially expanded; legislative decision | Defendants urge broader application given modern dissemination/correction tools | Court declines to expand statute on its own; invites Legislature to reevaluate scope given technological changes |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Gore, 48 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1950) (establishes legislative purpose: protect free dissemination of news and permit retraction to mitigate damages)
- Zelinka v. Americare Healthscan, Inc., 763 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (discusses § 770.01's historical scope and media/non-media distinction)
- Bridges v. Williamson, 449 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (interprets § 770.01 amendments in light of Ross)
- Davies v. Bossert, 449 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (applies ejusdem generis to limit "other medium" to broadcast/television analogs)
- Mancini v. Personalized Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc., 702 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (explains statute's purpose to protect free press and differentiates media vs. non-media defendants)
- Comins v. Vanvoorhis, 135 So. 3d 545 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (tests whether publication furthers free dissemination of information as a measure of media status)
- Plant Food Sys., Inc. v. Irey, 165 So. 3d 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (holds certain internet publishers fall within § 770.01 when performing traditional news-media functions)
- State v. Weeks, 202 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2016) (explains ejusdem generis canon of construction)
- Anderson v. State, 87 So. 3d 774 (Fla. 2012) (explains in pari materia principle for harmonizing related statutes)
- Cason v. Fla. Dep't of Mgmt. Servs., 944 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2006) (courts should not read into a statute language the legislature omitted elsewhere)
- Leisure Resorts, Inc. v. Frank J. Rooney, Inc., 654 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1995) (reinforces that legislative wording in one section does not imply omission in another)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2003) (defines narrow standard for certiorari review: departure from essential requirements of law)
- Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2000) (certiorari not available for mere disagreement with lower court legal interpretation)
- Sjuts v. State, 754 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (no certiorari when issue is debatable and not clearly established law)
- Wolf Creek Land Dev., Inc. v. Masterpiece Homes, Inc., 942 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (same principle limiting certiorari review)