Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01874/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01874-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Defendants have requested an oral argument on the motion. The court has the

discretion to grant or deny a request for oral argument. See LRCiv. 7.2(f). Here, upon

review of the motion, response and reply, the court finds that an oral argument would not

assist the court in reaching a decision. The written filings provide sufficient information for

the court to issue its ruling.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christopher and Arden Morley, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Lorre Smith, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-1874-PCT-ECV

ORDER

Pending before the court is a Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants James O.

Smith and Lorre Smith (“Defendants”), filed on February 5, 2007. Doc. #137.1

 Along with

the motion, Defendants filed a “Statement of Facts of Lorre Smith in Support of the Smith’s

Motion for Summary Judgment.” Doc. #138. Plaintiffs filed a Response to Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment on April 2, 2007. Doc. #159. Plaintiffs did not file a

statement of facts in support of their response. Attached to their response is “Plaintiff’s

Objection/Response to Smiths Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary

Judgment.” Defendants filed a Reply on April 17, 2007. Doc. #168.

Case 3:04-cv-01874-ECV Document 227 Filed 06/27/07 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

On April 19, 2007, Defendants filed an “Evidentiary Objection to Plaintiffs Affidavit

Filed in Support of Plaintiff’s Response to the Smith’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”

Doc. #170. In response, Plaintiffs filed a “Response/ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Smith’s

Evidentiary Objections and Smiths Reply Re: Motion for Summary Judgment.” Doc. #172.

Defendants then filed a “Reply/Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and Reply to

Plaintiff’s Response to Smith’s Evidentiary Objection Re Smith’s Motion for Summary

Judgment.” Doc. #184. Lastly, Plaintiffs filed a “Reply Re: Smiths Response to Plaintiffs

Motion to Strike” on May 14, 2007. Doc. #192. 

DISCUSSION

A. Summary Judgment Legal Standard

A court must grant summary judgment if the pleadings and supporting documents,

viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, “show that there is no genuine

issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986);

Jesinger v. Nevada Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 1994). The party

seeking summary judgment “bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis

for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,” which it believes

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The

moving party need not support its motion with affidavits or other materials negating the

opponent’s claim. Id. “[T]he burden on the moving party may be discharged by ‘showing’-

that is, pointing out to the district court-that there is an absence of evidence to support the

non-moving party’s case.” Id. at 325. 

A principal purpose of summary judgment is "to isolate and dispose of factually

unsupported claims." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24. Summary judgment is appropriate

against a party who "fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an

element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof

at trial." Id. at 322; see also Citadel Holding Corp. v. Roven, 26 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.

Case 3:04-cv-01874-ECV Document 227 Filed 06/27/07 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

1994). The moving party need not disprove matters on which the opponent has the burden

of proof at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. 

Furthermore, the party opposing summary judgment "may not rest upon the mere

allegations or denials of [the party's] pleading, but . . . must set forth specific facts showing

that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); see also Matsushita Elec. Indus.

Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986); Brinson v. Linda Rose Joint

Venture, 53 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 1995). There is no issue for trial unless there is

sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477

U.S. 242, 249 (1986). If the evidence is merely colorable or is not significantly probative,

summary judgment may be granted. Id. at 249-50.

B. Trade Libel

A claim for trade libel requires a plaintiff to prove that the defendant intentionally

published an injurious falsehood disparaging the quality of the plaintiff's property and that

such publication resulted in pecuniary loss to the plaintiff. See Gee v. Pima County, 126

Ariz. 116, 612 P.2d 1079 (1980). Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary

judgment on this claim because any alleged defamatory statements are protected by the

conditional privilege. Plaintiffs argue that the conditional privilege was abused by

publishing the statements to individuals outside of TICA.

As in its previous orders granting summary judgment to the other defendants, the

court concludes that the conditional privilege applies to the trade libel claim against

Defendants. See Unelko Corp. v. Rooney, 912 F.2d 1049, 1058 (9th Cir. 1990) (Trade libel

is "subject to the same first amendment requirements that govern actions for defamation.").

The court agrees with and adopts Judge Carroll’s discussion of this issue in his order

dismissing Plaintiffs’ defamation claims. Doc. #10 at 8-10.

 “Once a defendant demonstrates that a conditional privilege may apply, the plaintiff

may then prove an abuse of that privilege either by proving publication with ‘actual malice’

or by demonstrating excessive publication.” Green Acres Trust v. London, 141 Ariz. 609,

616, 688 P.2d 617, 624 (1984) (citations omitted). Excessive publication is established by

Case 3:04-cv-01874-ECV Document 227 Filed 06/27/07 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

demonstrating “publication to an unprivileged recipient not reasonably necessary to protect

the interest upon which the privilege is grounded.” Id.

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants abused the privilege by publishing the TICA

complaint to individuals outside of TICA. Even if Defendants distributed the information

to individuals outside of TICA, that alone does not establish abuse of the privilege. The

interest in protecting the particular breed of cat at issue is not necessarily limited to TICA

members. Plaintiffs have the burden to show that publication was made “to an unprivileged

recipient not reasonably necessary to protect the interest upon which the privilege is

grounded.” Green Acres Trust, 141 Ariz. at 616, 688 P.2d at 624. They have not done so.

Lastly, Plaintiffs’ attempt to include in this claim other allegedly defamatory

statements regarding the Mafia and “running from the law” will be rejected. Neither

comment disparages the quality of the plaintiff's property and therefore cannot form the basis

for a trade libel claim.

For these reasons, the court finds that the conditional privilege applies here and

Plaintiff has not shown that it was abused. Accordingly, summary judgment will be granted

in favor of Defendants on the trade libel claim.

C. Tortious Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage

A claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage requires: (1)

the existence of a valid contractual relationship or business expectancy; (2) the defendant's

knowledge of the relationship or expectancy; (3) improper and intentional interference by the

defendant inducing or causing a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy; and

(4) resultant damage to the party whose relationship or expectancy has been disrupted.

Miller v. Servicemaster, 174 Ariz. 518, 521, 851 P.2d 143, 146 (1992). Defendants contend

that Plaintiffs have not presented evidence to establish the elements of this claim and

therefore they are entitled to summary judgment. 

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence to show that

Defendants knew of any business relationship or expectancy. They assert that Plaintiffs have

Case 3:04-cv-01874-ECV Document 227 Filed 06/27/07 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

not shown how they allegedly interfered or how any alleged harm suffered was caused by

Defendants.

Plaintiffs first argue that the actions of former defendant Joy Peel-Pohto are

attributable to Defendants. Accordingly, they claim that Ms. Peel-Pohto’s interference with

Rahman Sayeed’s purchase of a cat is attributable to Defendants. Plaintiffs have attempted

throughout this case to attribute the acts of one defendant to all the others. The court has

rejected such attempts, and for the reasons set forth in previous orders will do so again here.

Ms. Peel-Pohto’s alleged interference with Mr. Sayeed’s transaction is not attributable to

Defendants. 

Plaintiffs next argue that Defendant Lorre Smith interfered with their business

expectancies by submitting the TICA complaint. They further contend that a mere

expectation of a business relationship is sufficient to prove the first element of the cause of

action and that Defendants concede three individuals had expressed an interest in Plaintiffs’

cats. Plaintiffs, however, fail to cite to any evidence in their response demonstrating that the

TICA complaint caused the breach or termination of the business expectancies. Moreover,

they present no evidence in their response of any damages suffered as a result of Defendants’

alleged interference. Plaintiffs cannot sustain a claim when they cite to no evidence

supporting the elements of the cause of action. Summary judgment on this claim will

therefore be granted in favor of Defendants. 

D. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

A claim for intentional interference of emotional distress requires proof of four

elements: (1) the conduct must be intentional or reckless; (2) the conduct must be extreme

and outrageous; (3) there must be a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the

emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress must be severe. Midas Muffler Shop v.

Ellison, 133 Ariz. 194, 197, 650 P.2d 496, 499 (App. 1982). “A plaintiff must show that the

defendant’s actions were ‘so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree, as to go

beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable

in a civilized community.’” Mintz v. Bell Atlantic Systems Leasing Intern., Inc., 183 Ariz.

Case 3:04-cv-01874-ECV Document 227 Filed 06/27/07 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

550, 554, 905 P.2d 559, 563 (App. 1995). "'[I]t is for the court to determine whether on the

evidence severe emotional distress can be found.'" Midas Muffler Shop, 133 Ariz. at 197, 650

P.2d at 499 (quoting Venerias v. Johnson, 127 Ariz. 496, 499, 622 P.2d 55, 58 (App. 1980).

Additionally, the court is to determine whether the acts complained of are sufficiently

extreme and outrageous. Mintz, 183 Ariz. at 554, 905 P.2d at 563. The issues goes to a jury

only if reasonable minds could differ on whether the conduct was sufficiently extreme or

outrageous. Id.

There was nothing extreme or outrageous about submitting a complaint to TICA that

raised concerns over Plaintiffs’ cat breeding and registration practices. Plaintiffs have not

come close to showing otherwise. Their response fails to present any evidence of conduct

about which reasonable minds could differ whether it was sufficiently severe or extreme.

Defendants’ request for summary judgment on this claim will be granted. 

E. Loss of Consortium 

A loss of consortium claim requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that he/she has suffered

"a loss of capacity to exchange love, affection, society, companionship, comfort, care and

moral support." Miller v. Westcor Ltd. Partnership, 171 Ariz. 387, 395, 831 P.2d 386, 394

(App. 1991) (citation omitted). Loss of consortium is a derivative claim such that "all

elements of the underlying cause must be proven before the claim can exist." Barnes v.

Outlaw, 192 Ariz. 283, 286, 964 P.2d 484, 487 (1998).

As the court has concluded above, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on

the trade libel, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and intentional

infliction of emotional distress claims against them. Because no underlying claims remain

against Defendants, the loss of consortium claim cannot survive. Summary judgment for

Defendants will be granted on this claim as well.

F. Evidentiary Objection and Motion to Strike

Defendants’ “Evidentiary Objection to Plaintiffs Affidavit Filed in Support of

Plaintiff’s Response to the Smith’s Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. #170) and

Plaintiffs’ “Response/ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Smith’s Evidentiary Objections and

Case 3:04-cv-01874-ECV Document 227 Filed 06/27/07 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

Smiths Reply Re: Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. #172) will be denied as moot. The

court did not rely on any of the facts to which Defendants objected or that Plaintiffs sought

to strike. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

That the Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants James O. Smith and Lorre

Smith (Doc. #137) is granted; and 

That Defendants James O. Smith and Lorre Smith are dismissed from this action with

prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: 

That Defendants’ “Evidentiary Objection to Plaintiffs Affidavit Filed in Support of

Plaintiff’s Response to the Smith’s Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. #170) and

Plaintiffs’ “Response/ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Smith’s Evidentiary Objections and

Smiths Reply Re: Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. #172) are denied as moot.

DATED this 26th day of June, 2007.

Case 3:04-cv-01874-ECV Document 227 Filed 06/27/07 Page 7 of 7