Todd L Levitt v. Digital First Media
330946
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 16, 2017Background
- Todd Levitt, an attorney and former adjunct CMU professor, sued a student (Felton) over a parody Twitter account; that case (Levitt I) was dismissed as protected parody and that dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
- The Morning Sun (Digital First Media) published an article about Levitt I with headline stating Levitt “admits to fake award,” reporting that Levitt created topcollegelawyers.com and awarded himself a College Lawyer of the Year prize.
- Levitt sued the newspaper and reporter Yanick-Jonaitis for libel, false light, IIED, and civil conspiracy, alleging the article’s headline and statements were false and defamatory.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition arguing substantial truth, the fair-reporting privilege, and insufficient pleading of fault (no actual malice); they sought dismissal under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10).
- The trial court denied summary disposition, finding Levitt a private figure and that the article’s gist (he admitted to creating a fake award and awarding it to himself) was materially false.
- The Court of Appeals reversed: holding Levitt a private figure covering a matter of public interest, concluding the article was substantially true in sting, and ordering dismissal of defamation-based claims (and related torts) because statements were not provably false under the First Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Levitt is a public figure | Levitt argued he is a private figure | Defendants suggested publicity made him public figure | Court: Levitt is a private figure (not general or limited-purpose public figure) |
| Falsity/substantial truth of article/headline | Headline (“admits to fake award”) was false; Levitt produced affidavits showing the award and committee were real | Article truthfully conveyed that Levitt created the site, criteria, committee, and promoted himself; inaccuracies were minor | Court: Statements were substantially true; sting matched literal truth; no different effect on reader |
| Fault standard required (actual malice vs negligence) | Levitt argued as private figure negligence sufficed; disputed fault pleadings | Defendants argued lack of actual malice and fair-reporting privilege | Court: As a private figure, falsity is threshold; because statements were substantially true, fault analysis unnecessary and dismissal required |
| Actionability of related torts (false light, IIED, conspiracy) given First Amendment | Levitt argued these torts actionable independent of defamation ruling | Defendants argued First Amendment requires falsity; if not provable as false, related torts fail | Court: Statements were not provable as false; First Amendment bars actionability; summary disposition for all related claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Rouch v. Enquirer & News of Battle Creek (After Remand), 440 Mich. 238 (recognizes substantial-truth test and "sting" analysis for falsity in defamation)
- Bufalino v. Detroit Magazine, Inc., 433 Mich. 766 (distinguishes general- and limited-purpose public figures)
- Locricchio v. Evening News Ass'n, 438 Mich. 84 (speech on matters of public concern receives heightened First Amendment protection)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (statements must be provable as false to be actionable under First Amendment limits)
- Koniak v. Heritage Newspapers, Inc. (On Remand), 198 Mich. App. 577 (substantial-truth defense requires dismissal when truth defeats falsity claim)
- Collins v. Detroit Free Press, Inc., 245 Mich. App. 27 (discusses First Amendment requirements: public/private figure, media defendant, public interest inquiry)