Phillips v. World Publishing Co.
822 F. Supp. 2d 1114
| W.D. Wash. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Chris Phillips, pro se, sues Tulsa World for defamation and other torts under diversity to recover over $75,000.
- Plaintiff alleges he is a medical and legal professional who abruptly closed his Lomas LASIK practice in Renton, Washington, in February 2008 and later filed for bankruptcy.
- Tulsa World allegedly published false statements that Phillips had disappeared or vanished, affecting his reputation and business.
- Plaintiff asserts numerous tort claims (Counts I–VIII) including defamation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, interference with contract and prospective advantage, false light, and civil harassment.
- Defendant moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and also moves to strike under RCW 4.24.525 (anti-SLAPP); plaintiff opposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defamation elements and falsity | Phillips alleges false statements, including that he vanished, harmed reputation and business. | Statements were true or non-actionable opinions; publication did not contain false statements. | Defamation claims dismissed for lack of provable falsity and specificity. |
| Emotional distress claims | Defamation caused severe emotional distress (outrage and negligent distress). | Outrage and negligent distress lack factual support separate from defamation claim. | Counts I–II dismissed; distress claims fail without factual basis and due to defamation dismissal. |
| Interference with contract and prospective advantage | Tulsa World interfered with Phillips's contractual relations and future employment prospects. | Plaintiff provides only conclusions; no plausible facts showing knowledge of a contract or targeted interference. | Counts V–VI dismissed for lack of plausibility and factual support. |
| False light | Tulsa World publications placed Phillips in a false light. | False light claim duplicative of defamation and fails for lack of false statements. | Count VII dismissed as redundant and lacking falsity. |
| Statute of limitations | Continuing internet publication tolls or discovery rules may extend limits. | Under either Washington or Oklahoma rules, claims are time-barred; discovery rule in Oklahoma does not apply here. | All claims time-barred; dismissal with prejudice; no amendment permitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990) (pleading must plead facts showing plausible relief)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for complaint)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (material facts must be plausible, not merely possible)
- Herron v. KING Broadcasting Co., 776 P.2d 98 (Wash. 1989) (falsity element and publication standard in Washington defamation)
- Robel v. Roundup Corp., 59 P.3d 611 (Wash. 2002) (protects that opinions and non-false statements not actionable)
- Lee v. Columbian, Inc., 826 P.2d 217 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991) (defamatory meaning judged by natural and obvious meaning)
- Kloepfel v. Bokor, 66 P.3d 630 (Wash. 2003) (emotional distress pleading requires concrete medical or symptomatology detail)
- Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2009) (plausibility standard applies to tort claims)
- Canatella v. Van De Kamp, 486 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2007) (single publication rule context for statute of limitations)
- Parker v. Bain, 68 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 1995) (bankruptcy stay limitations on actions against debtor)
- Woods v. Prestwick House, Inc., 247 P.3d 1183 (Okla. 2011) (Oklahoma discovery rule applied to defamation claims)
- Panavision Int'l v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998) (calculated targeting in Calder effects test)
- Oja v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 440 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2006) (definition of publication for jurisdictional purposes)