Reynolds v. Reynolds
231 Ariz. 313
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Siblings sued Robin Reynolds and Leonard Gold for defamation and false light over Robin’s phoenixWoman article.
- Article title is I Want To Die Like A Dog: Poignant Insights On Aging Gracefully, published online.
- Excerpt at issue describes mother not having a care plan and siblings’ alleged role in it.
- Golds moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); court granted dismissal after hearing argument.
- Siblings appealed; appellate court has jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1) (Supp. 2012).
- Court engages de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and analyzes both claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defamation claim viability | Reynolds: statement false and defamatory as to siblings. | Golds: statement not capable of bearing a meaning about them. | Defamation claim dismissed; not capable of 'of and concerning' siblings. |
| False light claim viability | Reynolds: article places siblings in a false light. | Golds: no publication placing them before the public in false light. | False light claim dismissed; publication did not place siblings in false light. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dube v. Likins, 216 Ariz. 406 (Ariz. 2007) (defamation standards and duties of care for statements)
- Burns v. Davis, 196 Ariz. 155 (App. 1999) (context and overall impression in defamation analysis)
- Hansen v. Stoll, 130 Ariz. 454 (App. 1981) (defamatory meaning may be implied by publication to identifiable readers)
- Turner v. Devlin, 174 Ariz. 201 (1993) (interpretation of statements in context for defamation)
- Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 162 Ariz. 335 (1989) (false light standard and substantial offensiveness)