951 F.3d 952
8th Cir.2020Background:
- Nelson Auto Center, Inc., a South Dakota corporation operating a car dealership in Minnesota, sued KARE 11 for publishing allegedly false statements that a "state vendor" was facing criminal swindling charges.
- The underlying criminal complaint charged Nelson Auto's former fleet manager, Gerald Worner, not Nelson Auto itself.
- KARE 11 published a July 24, 2017 website story and Facebook post stating a "state vendor" faced charges; the website story was later corrected to identify a "former employee," but the Facebook post was not deleted.
- In November 2017 KARE 11 published a story that linked to the uncorrected July 24 article; Nelson Auto alleged KARE 11 knew the statements were false and acted with actual malice.
- The district court granted KARE 11's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, concluding under Minnesota law Nelson Auto is a limited-purpose public figure and the complaint failed to plausibly allege actual malice; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nelson Auto is a limited-purpose public figure under Minnesota law | Nelson Auto: not a public figure for the investigation; small local business should be private | KARE 11: Jadwin/NW precedent treats corporations as public figures when matter concerns public interest | Court: Under Minnesota law (Jadwin and Eighth Circuit precedent) Nelson Auto is a limited-purpose public figure |
| Whether the July 24 website story and Facebook post plausibly allege actual malice | Nelson Auto: KARE 11 knew or recklessly disregarded that the story falsely implicated the dealership | KARE 11: "vendor" could reasonably refer to the employee; promptly corrected the website, so no reckless disregard | Court: No plausible inference of actual malice as to the initial statements; correction weighs against malice |
| Whether failure to delete Facebook post and November hyperlink republication plausibly allege actual malice | Nelson Auto: continued accessibility and republication after notice shows reckless disregard | KARE 11: retention and hyperlinking were oversight; no allegations showing relevance, bias, or intent to republish the falsehood | Court: Allegations show oversight, not the requisite reckless disregard; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (establishes actual malice standard for public officials and public figures)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (distinguishes public figures from private individuals and limits state standards)
- Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co., 367 N.W.2d 476 (Minn. 1985) (Minnesota rule: corporations may be public figures when matter concerns public interest)
- Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 173 F.3d 1109 (8th Cir. 1999) (applies Minnesota precedent on corporate limited-purpose public figures)
- Lundell Mfg. Co. v. American Broadcasting Cos., 8 F.3d 351 (8th Cir. 1996) (corporate plaintiff may be private when it did not inject itself into controversy)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (sets plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (applies Twombly pleading standard to factual allegations)
- St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (1968) (reckless disregard requires more than failure to investigate)
- Zerangue v. TSP Newspapers, Inc., 814 F.2d 1066 (5th Cir. 1987) (readiness to retract weighs against finding malice)