Santilli v. Van Erp, 8:17-cv-01797

Plaintiffs Ruggero and Carla Santilli are Florida-based researchers who market a purported antimatter-detecting telescope; Ruggero is the primary target of the challenged speech.
Defendant Pepijn Van Erp, a Dutch scientist, published critical blog posts (2016) calling Santilli a "fringe scientist," a "mad professor," accusing him of self-awarded/fabricated honors, and alleging publication in "fake" journals; reader comments followed.
Plaintiffs sued in state court (April 2017) for defamation and tortious interference and removed the case to federal court; they sought a preliminary injunction in March 2018 to order alteration/removal of certain blog statements.
The magistrate judge reviewed the injunction factors and applicable Florida law limiting injunctive relief in defamation actions, and considered whether plaintiffs had an independent basis to seek equitable relief via tortious interference claims.
The magistrate recommended denial of the preliminary injunction because plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success on defamation or tortious-interference claims, failed to show imminent irreparable harm, and because issuance would constitute a disfavored prior restraint on speech.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Availability of injunctive relief in defamation cases	Santilli seeks injunction to remove/alter posts harming reputation and business	Florida law generally bars injunctions in defamation cases; equitable relief available only with independent basis (e.g., tortious interference)	Denied — injunction generally unavailable absent independent equitable basis
Likelihood of success on defamation claim	Statements are false, defamatory, and caused reputational/financial harm	Statements are opinion, rhetorical hyperbole, or supported by linked source material; protected by First Amendment	Denied — plaintiffs unlikely to succeed; many statements are opinion/non-actionable
Tortious interference with business relations	Blog scared off potential investors, interfering with business opportunities	Plaintiffs provided only vague affidavits; no proximate business relationship shown or specific damages tied to posts	Denied — plaintiffs failed to show required elements (existing relationship, proximate interference, damages)
Irreparable harm / balance of harms / public interest	Plaintiffs claim irreparable reputational and financial injury warranting immediate relief	Delay in seeking injunction undermines imminence; prior restraint is severe First Amendment intrusion; public interest opposes injunction	Denied — no imminent irreparable harm; balance and public interest disfavors injunction

Davidoff & CIE, S.A. v. PLD Int’l Corp., 262 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2001) (four-factor preliminary injunction standard)
Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 252 F.3d 1165 (11th Cir. 2001) (preliminary injunction is extraordinary remedy requiring clear showing on each factor)
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (distinguishing opinion from provable false statements; First Amendment protections)
Greenbelt Coop. Publ’g Ass’n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (1970) (rhetorical hyperbole and epithet not actionable as defamation)
Turner v. Wells, 879 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2018) (elements of defamation under Florida law)
Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So.2d 812 (Fla. 1994) (elements for tortious interference with business relations)
Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) (prior restraints are the most serious and least tolerable First Amendment infringement)
Roca Labs, Inc. v. Consumer Op. Corp., 140 F. Supp. 3d 1311 (M.D. Fla. 2015) (discussing CDA §230 and single-publication rule in online defamation context)