Monarch Air Group, LLC v. JOURNALISM DEVELOPMENT NETWORK, INC.
0:23-cv-61256
S.D. Fla.May 19, 2025Background
- Monarch Air Group, LLC sued Journalism Development Network, Inc. (JDN) for defamation by implication over an article published on JDN's Organized Crime and Corruption Report (OCCRP) site about Monarch's connections to individuals with criminal backgrounds.
- The article detailed the former ownership of Monarch by individuals later convicted of organized crime and described Monarch's ongoing government contracts, including transporting protected witnesses.
- Monarch alleges the article implied a current affiliation with criminal activity or individuals, despite no explicit statement to that effect.
- JDN revised the article after acknowledgment of some inaccuracies but Monarch claimed the revised version remained defamatory by implication.
- JDN moved for partial judgment on the pleadings on the defamation by implication count; the motion was referred to a magistrate for a report and recommendation.
- The court recommends denial of JDN’s motion, finding a reasonable jury could view the article as defamatory by implication when considered in its entirety.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defamation by implication (present criminal association) | Article implies Monarch is still linked with criminals | Article states prior owners left in 2012; no present-day connection stated | Sufficient for jury to find implication; motion denied |
| Defamation by implication (drug smuggling incident) | Article suggests Monarch engaged in drug smuggling | Article only states facts; no suggestion of Monarch’s direct involvement | Not independently defamatory, but adds to overall gist |
| Defamation by implication (prosecutor’s legitimacy remark) | Omission of prosecutor's apology implies illegitimacy | Apology is ambiguous; inclusion not defamatory by itself | Not independently defamatory, but relevant to gist |
| Article as a whole is defamatory by implication | Article’s total effect portrays Monarch as tainted/criminal | Only true facts presented; no actionable implication when read in context | Reasonable jury could find defamation by implication |
Key Cases Cited
- Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2008) (explains defamation by implication and its standards under Florida law)
- Turner v. Wells, 879 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2018) (defamation by implication focuses on whether the overall gist is false)
- Johnston v. Borders, 36 F.4th 1254 (11th Cir. 2022) (a statement susceptible to two meanings, one defamatory, is for the jury)
- Perez v. Wells Fargo N.A., 774 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2014) (standard for judgment on the pleadings)
- Carbone v. Cable News Network, Inc., 910 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir. 2018) (motions for judgment on pleadings follow 12(b)(6) standard)