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 Mazur’s nonfiction book The Infiltrator and the film based on it.
- Book and Movie Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Baraya failed to provide presuit notice required by Fla. Stat. § 770.01 (2018).
- The trial court denied the motions to dismiss, accepting Baraya’s position that § 770.01 did not apply to books or movies and that defendants were non-media.
- Defendants petitioned the district court for writs of certiorari to quash the denial; certiorari is appropriate for reviewing denial of § 770.01 presuit‑notice dismissal.
- The district court concluded Florida precedent limits § 770.01 to news media (press/broadcast), not books or movies, so defendants were non‑media and not entitled to presuit notice; therefore certiorari was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Fla. Stat. § 770.01 (presuit notice) apply to books and movies? | § 770.01 should not apply; books/movies are not news media and thus no presuit notice required. | § 770.01’s phrase "other medium" covers books and films; presuit notice was required and its absence mandates dismissal. | § 770.01 is limited to news media (press/broadcast/analogous rapid‑dissemination media); books and movies are non‑media for § 770.01 purposes, so presuit notice was not required. |
| Whether the trial court’s ruling departed from established law such that certiorari relief is warranted | N/A (Plaintiff prevailed below). | The trial court misapplied § 770.01 and departed from controlling precedent, justifying certiorari. | No departure from essential requirements of law; existing case law supports limiting § 770.01 to the press, so certiorari was denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Gore, 48 So.2d 412 (Fla. 1950) (explains legislative purpose of presuit‑notice statute to protect newspapers and opportunity for retraction)
- Zelinka v. Americare Healthscan, Inc., 763 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (noting certiorari is proper to review denial of § 770.01 motion to dismiss)
- Bridges v. Williamson, 449 So.2d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (interpreting § 770.01 in light of Ross and legislative awareness)
- Davies v. Bossert, 449 So.2d 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (construing "other medium" as limited to broadcast media and noting statutory context)
- Mancini v. Personalized Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc., 702 So.2d 1376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (describing § 770.01 purpose as protecting free dissemination of news and distinguishing media vs. non‑media defendants)
- Comins v. Vanvoorhis, 135 So.3d 545 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (tests whether a publication furthers free dissemination of information to determine § 770.01 coverage)
- Plant Food Sys., Inc. v. Irey, 165 So.3d 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (holding certain internet publishers fall within § 770.01 as they perform news/media functions)
- State v. Weeks, 202 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2016) (explains ejusdem generis canon for construing general words following specifics)
- Anderson v. State, 87 So.3d 774 (Fla. 2012) (discusses in pari materia canon to harmonize related statutes)
- Cason v. Fla. Dep't of Mgmt. Servs., 944 So.2d 306 (Fla. 2006) (courts should not read omitted statutory language into a provision)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d 885 (Fla. 2003) (certiorari relief requires departure from essential requirements of law)
- Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So.2d 679 (Fla. 2000) (district court may not grant certiorari for mere disagreement with trial court law interpretation)
- Sjuts v. State, 754 So.2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (no certiorari where 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) (similar principle on limits of certiorari review)