92 So. 3d 572
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Williams was banned from the Convention Center after a work-related altercation.
- Williams sued the Convention Center in 2011 for defamation and discrimination; Center sought no-cause-of-action on discrimination and a special motion to strike on defamation.
- District court granted no-cause-of-action on discrimination and granted the strike motion but later, during consideration of the merits, allowed unsworn testimony from Williams.
- Writ denial/remand: Louisiana Supreme Court remanded for briefing, argument, and opinion; on remand this court affirms its prior denial of the Convention Center’s writ.
- Affidavits and evidentiary issues: Hebert’s affidavit lacked personal knowledge; district court erred by allowing Williams to testify unsworn; Center’s motion to strike failed on burden of proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 971 applicability to the Center | Williams argues art. 971 protects public issues; Center is a public actor. | Center contends art. 971 applies to its internal security actions as a public issue. | Center is a juridical person under art. 971; art. 971 applies. |
| Internal security as public issue | Security enforcement is a public issue of public interest. | Security policy is private to the Center and not a public issue. | Security issue can be public; district court erred in treating it as private. |
| Defamation via posting a photo without words | Posting Williams’ photo could defame by implication. | Posting without words cannot constitute defamation. | Defamation by implication can arise from photos; no merit to this challenge. |
| Procedural standard for 971 motion | Court should assess probability of success, not merely pleadings. | Burden-shift and prima facie showing required. | District court erred by focusing on pleadings over probability of success, but result stands. |
| Elicitation of testimony and affidavits | Williams denied fair hearing; sworn testimony should control. | Affidavits and testimony were properly considered. | District court error in procedure but not outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Melius v. Keiffer, 980 So.2d 167 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2008) (standard for de novo review on special motions to strike)
- Fitzgerald v. Tucker, 737 So.2d 706 (La.1/6/1999) (defamation by photographs may arise by implication)
- Hunt v. Town of Llano, 930 So.2d 251 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2006) (prima facie showing required for art. 971 motion; burden shifts on probability of success)
- Lee v. Pennington, 880 So.2d 1037 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2002) (defamation elements and publication)