Richard Nichols v. John Kanaley
Background
- Plaintiff Richard E.D. Nichols, a pro se holster designer/manufacturer, sued Milt Sparks Holsters, its president John A. Kanaley (aka Tony Kanaley), officers, and others alleging defamation, trade libel/commercial disparagement, tortious interference with business relationships/prospective economic advantage, civil conspiracy, violation of Idaho's Unfair Sales/Consumer Protection statute, and criminal libel.
- The defendants moved to dismiss under I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and submitted affidavits and exhibits asking the court to treat the motion as one for summary judgment under I.R.C.P. 56.
- Nichols filed an unsworn response with exhibits but did not present admissible evidence (no affidavits or verified pleadings) to controvert defendants’ affidavits.
- The only admissible evidence showing any communication was an email from John Kanaley to a third party criticizing Nichols and calling him a "troll;" defendants otherwise averred they never posted statements about Nichols on internet forums.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no genuine issue of material fact on any claim and awarding defendants appellate attorney fees for a frivolous appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defamation (libel) | Nichols: statements on internet forums defamed him and his business | Defendants: never posted about Nichols; email was opinion and not libelous per se | Court: no admissible evidence of libelous per se statements; summary judgment for defendants |
| Trade libel / commercial disparagement | Nichols: defendants willfully disparaged his product to cause financial harm | Defendants: did not publish false statements about Nichols; Nichols failed to plead/supply specific pecuniary damages | Court: Idaho has no distinct common-law cause here; Nichols failed to plead/support damages; summary judgment for defendants |
| Tortious interference / interference with prospective advantage | Nichols: defendants’ communications disrupted business relationship(s) with a third party and forum readers | Defendants: email shows only limited communication; no evidence of a prospective economic relationship or wrongful means/purpose | Court: undisputed evidence fails to establish a prospective relationship or wrongful interference; summary judgment for defendants |
| Unfair Sales Act / Consumer Protection, Conspiracy, and Fees | Nichols: defendants’ statements violated the Unfair Sales Act and they conspired; appeal challenges district court for not aiding pro se litigant | Defendants: no false or misleading commercial advertising; conspiracy claim depends on underlying torts; appeal is frivolous | Court: no evidence of statutory violations; conspiracy fails with underlying claims; defendants awarded appellate attorney fees under I.C. §12-121/I.A.R.41 |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. Conchemco, Inc., 111 Idaho 851 (Ct. App. 1986) (summary-judgment standard review)
- Brower v. E.I. DuPont Nemours & Co., 117 Idaho 780 (1990) (commercial-transaction test for I.C. § 12-120(3))
- Idaho First Nat’l Bank v. Bliss Valley Foods, Inc., 121 Idaho 266 (1991) (elements for wrongful interference with prospective economic relationships)
- Elliott v. Murdock, 161 Idaho 281 (2016) (defamation elements; opinion vs. false fact)
- Jenness v. Co-op. Publ’g. Co., 36 Idaho 697 (1923) (libel per se and damages)
- Barlow v. Int’l Harvester Co., 95 Idaho 881 (1974) (libelous per se relating to corporation’s business)
- Gough v. Tribune-Journal Co., 73 Idaho 173 (1952) (court determines libel per se when language is unambiguous)