Timothy L. Ashford, PC LLO v. Roses, 984 N.W.2d 596

Attorney Timothy L. Ashford represented Antonio and Andrea Tate on personal-injury matters, then withdrew in Nov. 2018 and asserted attorney liens.
Andrea sent a Dec. 13, 2018 letter threatening grievances and online reviews if fee/accounting demands were not met; a grievance was later emailed to Counsel for Discipline from an account using the alias “Roses Roses.”
On March 20, 2019, an individual using the alias Roses Roses posted a negative Google Business review about Ashford. Ashford later identified Roses Roses as Rose Thompson (Andrea’s aunt).
Ashford filed a 2019 suit naming Andrea and Roses Roses; Roses Roses was not properly served and the court dismissed her under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-217. Andrea was dismissed on summary judgment after evidence showed she did not post the review.
Ashford filed a 2020 suit against Roses Roses (Thompson). Thompson admitted she posted the March 20, 2019 review; the district court applied Nebraska’s single publication rule, held the defamation/false-light claims accrued on March 20, 2019 and were time-barred, and entered summary judgment for Thompson.
The court also dismissed Ashford’s civil-extortion claim because grievances to Counsel for Discipline are absolutely privileged; Ashford appealed and the appeals were consolidated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judge recusal	Ashford argued prior federal suit against the judge required recusal	Judge and defendants said prior suit was dismissed and created no present bias	Denial of recusal affirmed; no abuse of discretion; heavy presumption of impartiality not overcome
Dismissal of Roses Roses (service)	Ashford contended service by certified mail/publication sufficed and default should have been entered	Defendants argued service was improper and statutory 180‑day rule required dismissal	Dismissal under § 25‑217 proper; no proof of effective service; court lacked jurisdiction except to formalize dismissal
Statute of limitations / single publication rule for online review	Ashford urged a continuing/multiple-publication rule — limitations restarts each time review is viewed	Defendants argued Nebraska’s single publication rule (codified § 20‑209) applies to internet postings so claim accrues at first publication	Court held § 20‑209 codifies single publication rule and it applies to internet posts; cause accrued on March 20, 2019, so later suit was time‑barred
Civil extortion claim based on letter threatening grievances	Ashford claimed Andrea’s letter constituted extortion and supported tort damages	Defendants invoked absolute privilege for reports/grievances to Counsel for Discipline	Claim dismissed: reports/grievances to Counsel for Discipline are absolutely privileged (Neb. Ct. R. § 3‑322); no actionable claim

Pippen v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, 734 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2013) (applies single-publication rule to internet publications)
In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, 690 F.3d 161 (3d Cir. 2012) (treats online publication under single-publication rule)
Van Buskirk v. The New York Times Co., 325 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2003) (single-publication rule in internet defamation context)
Firth v. State, 98 N.Y.2d 365 (N.Y. 2002) (web postings analogous to traditional mass media; multiple-publication rule rejected)
Glassdoor, Inc. v. Andra Group, LP, 575 S.W.3d 523 (Tex. 2019) (state court holding single-publication rule applies to online employer reviews)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Wright, 277 Neb. 709 (Neb. 2009) (reports to Counsel for Discipline absolutely privileged; related disciplinary‑conduct precedent)