Petro-Lubricant Testing Laboratories, Inc.
148 A.3d 441
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2016Background
- Defendant Asher Adelman operated eBossWatch.com and reposted a Courthouse News Service article reporting an employee's hostile-work-environment and discrimination lawsuit against Petro-Lubricant Testing Laboratories and its owner John Wintermute in August 2010.
- Adelman later linked Wintermute on an "America's Worst Bosses 2010" list that linked to the article.
- After plaintiffs' counsel sent a December 2011 demand to remove allegedly defamatory content, Adelman revised the article (changed title, removed a photo, and slightly reworded paragraph 3), then republished it on the site.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in June 2012 asserting defamation, false light, and IIED based on the August 2010 article, the worst-bosses list, and the December 2011 repost.
- The trial court found the original August 2010 post and the worst-bosses list time-barred under the one-year libel statute; it denied summary judgment on the December 2011 post but later granted judgment to defendant on other grounds.
- On appeal the court addressed whether the December 2011 repost constituted a new publication (triggering a new limitations period), and whether defendant could assert an NJLAD retaliation counterclaim and obtain discovery sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the December 2011 repost was a new "publication" for statute-of-limitations purposes | December 2011 post contained significant changes in content, substance, and form and thus is a new publication restarting the one-year limitations period | Changes were minor, immaterial, and intended to soften the allegations; single-publication rule should apply so limitations started with the August 2010 posting | The single-publication rule applies; the December 2011 repost was not a republication and the claims are time-barred (limitations began August 2010) |
| Whether the article was privileged / published with actual malice | Plaintiffs argued privilege did not apply and malice could be shown | Defendant argued the December 2011 article was a full, fair, accurate report and privileged | Appellate court did not reach plaintiffs' remaining contentions after affirming dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds (lower court had found privilege) |
| Whether defendant has standing to bring an NJLAD retaliation counterclaim | Plaintiffs: defendant lacks statutory standing because he did not aid/encourage the employee | Defendant: as publisher he can assert retaliation claim under NJLAD | Defendant lacked statutory standing under NJLAD; counterclaim properly dismissed |
| Whether trial court abused its discretion in denying discovery sanctions | Defendant sought sanctions for alleged discovery abuses | Plaintiffs opposed sanctions | Denial of sanctions was not an abuse of discretion; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowe v. Mazel Thirty, LLC, 209 N.J. 35 (New Jersey 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Churchill v. State, 378 N.J. Super. 471 (App. Div. 2005) (single-publication rule applies to internet publications; mere technical updates do not create new causes of action)
- Estate of Hanges v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 202 N.J. 369 (New Jersey 2010) (legal conclusions on summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Craig v. Suburban Cablevision, Inc., 140 N.J. 623 (New Jersey 1995) (statutory standing under NJLAD requires showing of aiding/encouraging the aggrieved employee)
- Isko v. Planning Bd. of Livingston, 51 N.J. 162 (New Jersey 1968) (appellate affirmance permitted even if lower court relied on incorrect rationale)