1 

BRITO, PLLC

2121 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 650│ Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone: (305) 614-4071

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Fort Lauderdale Division

DONALD J. TRUMP, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC.

Defendant.

Case No.: 22-cv-61842-AHS

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REHEARING OF 

COURT’S ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [DE 31] 

Plaintiff, DONALD J. TRUMP (“Plaintiff”), by and through undersigned counsel and 

pursuant to Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby files his Motion for 

Reconsideration and/or Rehearing of the Court’s Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 

[DE 31], and in support thereof states as follows:

I. Preliminary Statement

This action stems from Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant Cable News Network, Inc. 

(“CNN”) has sought to use its massive influence to defame Plaintiff in the minds of its viewers 

and readers. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that CNN has engaged in a pattern and practice of 

deliberately, repeatedly and undeniably comparing Plaintiff to violent dictators, such as Adolf 

Hitler, and repeatedly using inflammatory language, such as “Trump’s Big Lie,” to knowingly 

make false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff. Plaintiff has alleged that CNN knew that its 

false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff would infringe his rights and damage his 

reputation, as evidenced by the fact that CNN anchors were explicitly instructed by CNN’s thenCase 0:22-cv-61842-AHS Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 1 of 16
2

BRITO, PLLC

2121 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 650│ Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone: (305) 614-4071

CEO to stop using the phrase “The Big Lie.” CNN’s knowledge of the false and defamatory nature 

of its statements is further demonstrated through the statements of Political Director Paul

Steinhauser, who emphasized that analogizing politicians to Hitler and the Nazis was both 

“stupid,” and “sick.” See DE 1, ¶24.

To that end, Plaintiff filed a two count Complaint alleging the following causes of action: 

(a) Count I - Defamation Per Se, and (b) Count II – Defamation. By Order entered on July 28,

2023, this Court dismissed the entirety of Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice. DE 31. In its Order, 

the Court determined that the claims alleged in the Complaint failed given that Plaintiff did not 

sufficiently allege that the statements made by CNN, despite being described as “repugnant” by 

this Court, were false statements of fact on the grounds that: (a) the complained of statements were 

not actionable because they were statements of opinion, and not factually false statements, and (b) 

“the reasonable viewer . . . no longer takes the time to research and verify reporting that often is 

not, in fact, news.” See DE 31, p. 7.

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff submits that the Court’s Order of Dismissal is 

subject to reconsideration and that the Court should: (a) permit rehearing (and oral argument, 

should the Court deem it necessary) on CNN’s Motion to Dismiss, or alternatively (b) leave to 

amend should be granted to permit Plaintiff to allege a claim for defamation by implication.

II. Argument

A. Applicable Standard

“A motion for reconsideration made after final judgment falls within the ambit of either 

Rule 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b) (motion for relief from judgment 

Case 0:22-cv-61842-AHS Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 2 of 16
3

BRITO, PLLC

2121 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 650│ Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone: (305) 614-4071

or order).”1 See Region 8 Forest Srv. Timber Purchases Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 806 n.5 

(11th Cir. 1993); Williams v. Cruise Ships Catering & Serv. Int'l, N.V., 320 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1257 

(S.D. Fla. 2004). “Under which Rule the motion falls turns on the time at which the motion is 

served.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). “If the motion is served within 10 days of the rendition 

of the judgment, the motion falls under Rule 59(e); if it is served after that time, it falls under Rule 

60(b).” Id. The instant motion is being filed within 10 days of the rendition of the judgment and, 

thus, should be adjudged pursuant to Rule 59(e).

The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or 

to present newly discovered evidence. Z.K. Marine, Inc. v. M/V Archigetis, 808 F. Supp. 1561, 

1563 (S.D. Fla. 1992). There are three major grounds that justify reconsideration: (1) intervening 

change in controlling law; (2) availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or 

prevent manifest injustice. Spanish Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Clear Channel Commc'ns, 2003 WL 

21877614, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 6, 2003) (citing Z.K. Marine, Inc. v. M/V Archigetis, 808 F. Supp. 

1561, 1563 (S.D. Fla. 1992)). When the party seeking reconsideration “assert[s] neither an 

intervening change in controlling law nor the discovery of new evidence, the Court reviews [a 

Motion for Reconsideration and/or Rehearing] under the ‘clear error or manifest injustice’ 

standard.” In re Baron's Stores, Inc., 2008 WL 11399688, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 2008). “A 

motion for reconsideration is not intended to be a tool for relitigating what a court has already 

decided.” City of Fort Lauderdale v. Scott, 2011 WL 1085327, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2011)

(citing Reyher v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 900 F.Supp. 428, 430 (M.D. Fla. 1995)). Rather, it 

1 “[D]ismissal of a complaint with prejudice satisfies the requirement that there be a 

final judgment on the merits.” Citibank, N.A. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 904 F.2d 1498, 1501 (11th 

Cir. 1990). 

Case 0:22-cv-61842-AHS Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 3 of 16
4

BRITO, PLLC

2121 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 650│ Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone: (305) 614-4071

“must demonstrate why the court should reconsider its prior decision and set forth facts or law of 

a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” Reyher, 900 F.Supp. 

at 430 (internal quotations omitted).

B. The Court Should Reconsider Its Order Because the Complaint

States a Claim for Defamation Per Se and/or For Defamation.

In Florida, “[d]efamation has the following five elements: (1) publication; (2) falsity; (3) 

actor must act with knowledge or reckless disregard as to the falsity on a matter concerning a 

public official, or at least negligently on a matter concerning a private person; (4) actual damages; 

and (5) statement must be defamatory.” Jews For Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So. 2d 1098, 1106 (Fla. 

2008). Moreover, because Plaintiff is a public figure, he must establish “actual malice” on behalf 

of CNN in order to maintain a defamation action. Turner v. Wells, 879 F.3d 1254, 1273 (11th Cir. 

2018); see also Nodar v. Galbreath, 462 So.2d 803, 806 (Fla. 1984) (citing New York Times Co. 

v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 280 (1964)). 

1. The Complained of Statements are “Mixed-Opinion” as 

Opposed to “Pure Opinion” and Are Therefore Actionable.

In its Order, the Court found that the statements which form the basis of the defamation 

claim “are opinion, not factually false statements, and therefore are not actionable.” See DE 31. 

Under Florida law, “[a] statement is ‘pure opinion’ only if the speaker states the facts on which he 

bases his opinion.” See Lipsig v. Ramlawi, 760 So. 2d 170, 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (citing From 

v. Tallahassee Democrat, Inc., 400 So. 2d 52, 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). “Pure opinion occurs when 

the defendant makes a comment or opinion based on facts which are set forth in the article or which 

are otherwise known or available to the reader or listener as a member of the public.” See From, 

400 So. 2d at 57. In contrast, a “[m]ixed opinion is based upon facts regarding a person or his 

conduct that are neither stated in the publication nor assumed to exist by a party exposed to the 

Case 0:22-cv-61842-AHS Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 4 of 16
5

BRITO, PLLC

2121 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 650│ Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone: (305) 614-4071

communication.” Dreggors v. Wausau Ins. Co., 995 So. 2d 547, 551 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (quoting 

Hay v. Indep. Newspapers, Inc., 450 So. 2d 293, 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)); Tillett v. BJ’s Wholesale 

Club, Inc., 2010 WL 11507322, *4 (M.D. Fla., July 30, 2010, Howard, J.) (in order for statements 

to be deemed “pure opinion” and therefore not subject to a claim for defamation, “[t]he facts upon 

which the opinion is based must be stated and disclosed or known to the audience to whom the 

publication is made....”) [citations omitted]. As the Court in Tillett goes on to note:

[i]n contrast to pure opinions, ‘mixed’ expressions of opinion are 

not constitutionally protected and may form the basis for a 

defamation action. A mixed opinion “is based on undisclosed facts 

that infer the plaintiff has committed an illegal act, or one that 

damages his or her business reputation....

Id. at f.n. 9.

Determining whether a statement constitutes pure opinion requires the court to “construe 

the statement in its totality, examining not merely a particular phrase or sentence, but all of the 

words used in the publication” and “consider the context in which the statement was published.” 

See Dreggors, 995 So. 2d at 551 (quoting Hay, 450 So. 2d at 295); see also Hoch v. Rissman, 

Weisberg, Barrett, 742 So. 451, 460 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (stating that one looks to the totality of 

the statement, the context in which it was published, and the words used to determine whether the 

statement is pure or mixed opinion). Further, “[a]ll of the circumstances surrounding the 

publication must be considered, including the medium by which it was disseminated and the 

audience to which it was published.” See Dreggors, 995 So. 2d at 551 (quoting Hay, 450 So. 2d at 

295). While pure opinion is afforded protection under the First Amendment, a mixed opinion is 

not afforded such protections. Id. 

Here, this Court erred in failing to consider that a mixed statement of opinion may still 

imply a false assertion of fact when the statement is construed in its totality. See Dershowitz v. 

Case 0:22-cv-61842-AHS Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 5 of 16
6

BRITO, PLLC

2121 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 650│ Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone: (305) 614-4071

Cable News Network, Inc., 541 F. Supp. 3d 1354, 1362 (S.D. Fla. 2021); see also Milkovich v. 

Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1990) (“Even if the speaker states the facts upon which he 

bases his opinion, if those facts are either incorrect or incomplete, or if his assessment of them is 

erroneous, the statement may still imply a false assertion of fact. Simply couching such statements 

in terms of opinion does not dispel these implications.”); see also Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gellert, 

438 So. 2d 923, 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (“[A] statement that although ostensibly in the form of 

an opinion ‘implies the allegation of undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the opinion’ is 

actionable.”).

Assuming, arguendo, that the allegations in the Complaint [DE 1] indicate that CNN's 

statements may have been presented in the form of an opinion, the statements continued to imply

the existence of undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the opinion. For example, the mere 

presentation of the Plaintiff's footage alongside discussions of Hitler and Nazi Germany, coupled 

with the viewers’ responses, suggested that there are specific defamatory facts about the Plaintiff 

that were not explicitly stated but were implied by the juxtaposition and context of the report. See 

DE 1, ¶ 15-17. The “Special Report” and the viewers’ comments on Twitter (which are alleged in 

the Complaint and are discussed in more detail below) collectively created a narrative that 

associated Plaintiff with Hitler, wrongfully insinuating that Plaintiff shares certain characteristics 

or behaviors with the notorious historical despot. See DE 1, ¶17. While CNN may claim that these 

statements were presented as opinions or commentary, the implications drawn by the viewers 

indicate that there might be undisclosed defamatory facts about Plaintiff that formed the basis for 

the opinions expressed in the report. Id. When a statement, even if presented as an opinion, implies 

the existence of defamatory facts without explicitly stating them, it can be actionable. See Eastern 

Air Lines, Inc. v. Gellert, 438 So. 2d 923, 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (“[A] statement that although 

Case 0:22-cv-61842-AHS Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 6 of 16
7

BRITO, PLLC

2121 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 650│ Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone: (305) 614-4071

ostensibly in the form of an opinion ‘implies the allegation of undisclosed defamatory facts as the 

basis for the opinion’ is actionable.”).

By way of example, in Lipsig, the Florida Third District Court of Appeals found that the 

statement that the appellee “mismanaged” the partnership was not pure opinion and was actionable 

as it implied that undisclosed facts existed. Lipsig, 760 So. 2d at 185. The same reasoning applies 

here to CNN’s highly offensive, damaging statements about Plaintiff being comparable to, or a 

functional equivalent of, Adolf Hitler. See Arison Shipping Company v. Smith, 311 So.2d 739, 741 

(Fla. 3rd DCA 1975) (“Ample evidence was presented at the trial to indicate that the 

communications were not made in good faith and that they were made to lower echelon employees 

having no corresponding interest in them, that they were not warranted, not made upon a proper 

occasion and that they were made for the express purpose of injuring the plaintiff Smith”). 

Importantly, under Florida law, a speaker cannot invoke a “pure opinion” defense, if the 

facts underlying the opinion are false or inaccurately presented. See Zambrano v. Devanesan, 484 

So.2d 603, 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (stating that the pertinent question is “whether the speaker 

accurately presented the underlying facts of the situation before making the allegedly defamatory

remarks.”); see also Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 18–19 (1990) (holding that even 

if the speaker states the facts upon which he bases his opinion, the statement may still imply false 

assertions of fact if those facts are incorrect, incomplete or the speaker's assessment of the facts is 

erroneous). The statements referenced in the Complaint lend no support for a determination that 

CNN “accurately presented the underlying facts of the situation before making the allegedly 

defamatory remarks,” thereby belying CNN’s contention that its statements were pure opinion.

Moreover, based solely upon the allegations of the Complaint, the Court is not presented with the 

ability to consider “all of the circumstances surrounding the publication” as is required by Florida 

Case 0:22-cv-61842-AHS Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 7 of 16
8

BRITO, PLLC

2121 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 650│ Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone: (305) 614-4071

law. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that this Court reconsider its determination that the 

complained of statements were not actionable.

2. The Trial Court’s Analysis of What The Reasonable

Viewer May Do Was Fact-Specific and Premature.

“[I]f an allegedly defamatory publication is reasonably susceptible of two meanings, one 

of which is defamatory and one of which is not, it is for the trier of fact to determine the meaning 

understood by the average reader. Rubin v. U.S. News & World Rep., Inc., 271 F.3d 1305, 1306 

(11th Cir. 2001) (citing Ford v. Rowland, 562 So.2d 731, 734 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)). “Where a 

statement is subject to two possible interpretations and one is defamatory, it is for the jury to 

decide whether the statement is in fact defamatory.” Johnston v. Borders, 36 F.4th 1254, 1275 

(11th Cir. 2022) (citing Hallmark Builders, Inc. v. Gaylord Broad. Co., 733 F.2d 1461, 1463 (11th 

Cir. 1984)) [emphasis supplied].

Here, this Court found that no reasonable viewer could (or should) plausibly connect

CNN’s use of the phrase “the Big Lie” in relation to Plaintiff’s election challenge to a plausible 

inference that Plaintiff advocates the persecution and genocide of Jews or any other group of 

people. See DE 31, p. 9. Namely, the Court found as follows:

CNN’s use of the phrase ‘the Big Lie’ in connection with Trump’s 

election challenges does not give rise to plausible inference that 

Trump advocates the persecution and genocide of Jews or any other 

group of people. No reasonable viewer could (or should) plausibly 

make that reference.

See Order [DE 31], p. 9. 

In support, the Court relies on Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Ane, 423 So. 2d 376, 389 (Fla. 3d 

DCA 1982), which states that “[t]he language of the publication declared upon should not be 

interpreted by extremes, but should be construed as the common mind would normally understand 

Case 0:22-cv-61842-AHS Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 8 of 16
9

BRITO, PLLC

2121 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 650│ Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone: (305) 614-4071

it.” The decision in Miami Herald Pub. Co., however, involved an appeal of a final judgment 

entered in favor of the plaintiff after a jury verdict. Id. at 382.2 Distinguishable from the Miami 

Herald Pub. Co. decision is that this Court’s determination was made in response to a motion to 

dismiss, which Plaintiff submits was a factual determination made prematurely as to whether a 

reasonable viewer “could have interpreted [CNN’s] statements” to implicate a defamatory 

meaning. Id. Florida law makes clear that it is for the trier of fact to determine whether a 

defamatory publication is susceptible to a defamatory meaning. Such a susceptibility to a 

defamatory interpretation is laid bare in Plaintiff’s Complaint, which clearly alleges that on 

January 9, 2022, CNN aired a “Special Report” where the ascendancy of Hitler is discussed, and 

CNN intersperses discussions of Hitler and Nazi Germany with footage of Plaintiff. See DE 1, ¶ 

16. The effect on viewers is apparent given the viewer’s responses to the “Special Report” as 

evidenced by the comments made by the viewers on the media platform, Twitter. See DE 1, ¶ 17. 

Namely, the following comments were made by viewers on Twitter: 

• “Excellent and chilling. The parallels with the rise of Hitler are obvious and 

undeniable right down to the lies and conspiracy theories;”

• “Fareed Zakaria lays out the ways in which this threat is real and parallels historical 

threats;”

• “The similarity between Hitler in 1930s Germany and Trump in 2016 are notorious. 

And the way you made the segment by on and off alternate images of both. Even if 

not apparent before, you made it now.”

Id. 

2 Further, in that case, the Court actually determined that the statements made concerning 

the plaintiff were susceptible to a defamatory meaning. Id. at 389.

Case 0:22-cv-61842-AHS Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 9 of 16
10

BRITO, PLLC

2121 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 650│ Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone: (305) 614-4071

Although this Court ruled that a reasonable viewer would not reasonably interpret CNN's 

statements as defamatory, viewers are indeed making such interpretations as evidenced by the 

numerous allegations in the Complaint, which provide examples of such interpretations.

Accordingly, Plaintiff submits the Court’s ruling that the complained-of statements were not 

defamatory was made prematurely, as it did not consider the potential for defamatory 

interpretations of those statements by an average person and overlooked the already occurring 

defamatory interpretations. Thus, this determination should have been left for the jury to decide. 

3. Plaintiff Has Plead Sufficient Facts to Show

A Plausible Inference of Actual Malice.

At the Motion to Dismiss stage, a public figure need only “plead facts sufficient to give 

rise to a plausible inference of actual malice.” See Dershowitz, 541 F. Supp. 3d at 1362 (citing 

Michel v. NY Post Holdings, Inc., 816 F.3d 686, 702 (11th Cir. 2016)) [emphasis added]. “There 

must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious 

doubts as to the truth of his publication,” Lovingood v. Discovery Commc'ns, Inc., 800 F. App'x 

840, 850 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968)), or that he 

acted with a “high degree of awareness of ... probable falsity.” Lovingood, 800 F. App'x at 850

(quoting Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74 (1964)).

Here, the Complaint clearly alleges facts sufficient to infer actual malice. Namely, to 

highlight a few of the many examples, Plaintiff alleges that “[w]hen labels like ‘racist,’ ‘Russian 

lackey,’ and ‘insurrectionist’ did not have the desired effect to undermine the Plaintiff’s 

candidacy...CNN upped the stakes to conjure associations between the Plaintiff and arguably the 

most heinous figure in modern history [i.e. Hitler].” See DE 1, ¶15(c). In addition, Plaintiff alleges 

that “CNN made false and defamatory statements about the Plaintiff...as evidenced by the 

Case 0:22-cv-61842-AHS Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 10 of 16
11

BRITO, PLLC

2121 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 650│ Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone: (305) 614-4071

comments of a CNN employee, who admitted that CNN’s coverage and negative characterizations 

of the Plaintiff were intended to convince viewers to vote him out of political office.” Id. Further, 

Plaintiff alleges that “CNN knew that its false and defamatory statements about the Plaintiff would 

infringe his rights and damage his reputation, as evidenced by the fact that CNN anchors were 

explicitly instructed by CNN’s CEO to stop using the phrase ‘The Big Lie.’” Id.

Accordingly, as evidenced by the non-exhaustive list of allegations provided above, it is 

manifest that Plaintiff did adequately allege a plausible inference of actual malice in the Complaint.

C. Alternatively, the Court Should Reconsider Its Order

And Grant Plaintiff Leave to Amend The Complaint.

In the event that the Court is not inclined to reconsider its decision to dismiss Counts I and 

II of the Complaint, Plaintiff, in alternative, respectfully requests that the Court reconsider its 

decision to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice and grant Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint.

“[A] district court's discretion to dismiss a complaint without leave to amend is ‘severely 

restrict[ed]’ by Fed.R.Civ.P.15(a), which directs that leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when 

justice so requires.’” See Thomas, 847 F.2d at 773. Unless there is a substantial reason to deny 

leave to amend, the discretion of the district court is not broad enough to permit denial. Id.

Here, although the Court found that Plaintiff’s defamation per se and defamation claims 

failed because the statements made by CNN were not “false statements of fact,” such a 

determination does not mean that the statements made cannot form the basis of a distinct 

defamation by implication, which is an intentional tort that is well recognized in Florida. See Jews 

for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So.2d 1098, 1108 (Fla. 2008). A defamation by implication claim has 

been described as “[s]imply put, if the defendant juxtaposes a series of facts so as to imply a 

defamatory connection between them, or creates a defamatory implication by omitting facts, he 

Case 0:22-cv-61842-AHS Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 11 of 16
12

BRITO, PLLC

2121 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 650│ Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone: (305) 614-4071

may be held responsible for the defamatory implication, unless it qualifies as an opinion, even 

though the particular facts are correct.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Thus, even a technically 

true statement can be defamatory where, by its context or the omission of other facts, it creates a 

false impression. Id. (“[d]efamation by implication is premised not on direct statements but on 

false suggestions, impressions and implications arising from otherwise truthful statements”).

In this case, even if any statements made were not, as the Court held, “false statements of 

fact,” (DE 31, p. 7) these statements are still actionable under a claim for defamation by 

implication. The statements made by CNN and its journalists about the “Big Lie” and the attempted 

comparisons made by them between Plaintiff and Adolf Hitler (or other political rogues) would 

clearly imply a false, defamatory, “odious” and “repugnant” (DE 31, p. 10) connection between 

Plaintiff and these individuals, which supports a claim of defamation by implication. In dismissing 

the action with prejudice, Plaintiff is currently barred from alleging an otherwise viable claim.3

The recent decision in Block v. Matesic is instructive. 2023 WL 3816693, at *1 (S.D. Fla. 

June 5, 2023). In Block, the plaintiff’s allegation arose from an allegedly defamatory letter that the 

defendants emailed to their condo association. Id. The relevant portion of that letter stated:

Recently Tower One's members were subjected to at least two email 

blasts from a disgruntled owner disparaging the Association, its 

directors, the construction project, and its associated professionals 

with incorrect statements and facts. These unsolicited emails [sic] 

blasts to owners visibly listed each member's email address causing 

serious privacy and security concerns for everyone. Neither the 

Association nor its management was the source of our owners' email 

addresses and the method of obtainment by the owner remains 

unknown. The Association and management staff take your privacy 

and security seriously. We advise all members to check and consider 

3 Plaintiff is now represented by new lead counsel who did not file the initial Complaint 

and was not involved in the briefing on the Motion to Dismiss. As new counsel, undersigned 

counsel requests the opportunity to allege a claim for defamation by implication.

Case 0:22-cv-61842-AHS Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 12 of 16
13

BRITO, PLLC

2121 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 650│ Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone: (305) 614-4071

updating their computer's security and privacy settings.

Id. 

The plaintiff alleged claims of defamation per se, defamation by implication, and 

conspiracy to defame. Id. The Court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss in its entirety and, 

in doing so, stated that “it’s not [the Court’s] job, at the pleading stage, to separate truth from 

fiction.” Id. at *7. The Court made clear that it was “[its] job only to determine, from the face of 

the [complaint], whether the plaintiff . . . pled a viable claim.” Id.

In denying the motion to dismiss the defamation by implication claim, the Court stated as 

follows:

The [p]laintiff has alleged three facts about the letter—which, 

together, ‘imply a defamatory connection between them[.]’ . . . First, 

the letter claimed that ‘[t]hese unsolicited emails [sic] blasts to 

owners visibly listed each member's email address causing serious 

privacy and security concerns for everyone.’ Second, the letter noted 

that ‘[n]either the Association nor its management was the source of 

our owners' email addresses and the method of obtainment by the 

owner remains unknown.’ Third, the letter ‘advise[d] all members 

to check and consider updating their computer's security and privacy 

settings.’ As we said at our First MTD Hearing, ‘by juxtaposing 

[these three statements], a reasonable juror could find that the 

defendants had implied that the plaintiff had obtained their emails 

by some wrongful means and that it had caused security concerns.’

That's plainly sufficient to state a viable claim of defamation by 

implication at this preliminary stage of the case.

Trying to parry, the [d]efendants insist that the ‘[p]laintiff does not 

allege that the Letter contained truthful statements, that were 

conveyed in such a way as to create a false impression.’ Corsi, the 

Defendants say, therefore suggests that we should dismiss the claim. 

We disagree. In Corsi, the defendants moved to dismiss the 

defamation-by-implication claim because ‘the Complaint does not 

allege how Fairbanks' words were true but gave a false 

impression[.]’ The plaintiff in that case, though, bizarrely failed to 

“respond in opposition to the Newsmax [d]efendants' argument, let 

alone address or mention his defamation by implication counts.’ The 

defendants, in other words, won this point by default. The court (it's 

Case 0:22-cv-61842-AHS Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 13 of 16
14

BRITO, PLLC

2121 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 650│ Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone: (305) 614-4071

true) went on to say that, on the merits, the complaint ‘pleads only 

that Fairbanks' accusations were false, not that they were true and 

gave a false impression[.]’ But that's simply not our case. Our 

[p]laintiff, as we've seen, has alleged that the ‘[d]efendants' 

published statements concerning [p]laintiff created false 

suggestions, impressions and/or implications about him,’; that the 

“[d]efendants' published statements concerning Plaintiff juxtaposed 

a series of facts that implied a defamatory connection between 

them,”; and that the “[d]efendants further created a defamatory 

implication by omitting certain facts,” 

Finally, the [d]efendants ask us to dismiss the [p]laintiff's 

defamation-by-implication claim because the ‘SAC is premised on 

his allegations that the Letter was ‘laced with falsities’ and drafted 

‘without any regard for whether its contents were true (they were 

not).’’ But ‘pleading in the alternative is permissible in federal 

court.’ . . . At some point, the [p]laintiff will have to decide whether 

the letter's statements were true or false—but not today.

We therefore DENY the [d]efendants' MTD as it relates to the 

defamation-by-implication claim.

Id. at *4–5 (S.D. Fla. June 5, 2023); see also Rubin, 271 F.3d at 1306 (“if an allegedly defamatory 

publication is reasonably susceptible of two meanings, one of which is defamatory and one of 

which is not, it is for the trier of fact to determine the meaning understood by the average reader”); 

Johnston, 36 F.4th at 1275 (“Where a statement is subject to two possible interpretations and one 

is defamatory, it is for the jury to decide whether the statement is in fact defamatory”); Bongino v. 

Daily Beast Co., LLC, 477 F. Supp. 3d at 1318 (“when a publication is susceptible of two 

reasonable interpretations, one of which is defamatory . . . the issue become[s] one of fact for the 

jury”).

III. Conclusion

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, respectfully requests that 

the Court reconsider its decision on, or rehear arguments relating to, Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss. In the alternative, if the Court were to deny reconsideration or rehearing of its dismissal 

Case 0:22-cv-61842-AHS Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 14 of 16
15

BRITO, PLLC

2121 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 650│ Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone: (305) 614-4071

of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff respectfully requests that he be permitted to amend the

Complaint to bring a claim for defamation by implication.

Dated: August 7, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

BRITO, PLLC

Counsel for Plaintiff 

2121 Ponce de Leon Boulevard 

Suite 650 

Miami, FL 33134

Office: 305-614-4071

 Fax: 305-440-4385

 By: /s/ Alejandro Brito 

 ALEJANDRO BRITO

Florida Bar No. 098442 

abrito@britopllc.com

apiriou@britopllc.com 

Case 0:22-cv-61842-AHS Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 15 of 16
16

BRITO, PLLC

2121 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 650│ Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone: (305) 614-4071

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 7, 2023 the foregoing was served via the Court’s 

CM/ECF System upon:

LINDSEY HALLIGAN, P.A.

Lindsey Halligan, Esq.

511 SE 5th Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

lindseyhalligan@outlook.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

GUNSTER, YOAKLEY & STEWART, P.A. 

George S. LeMieux, Esq. 

Eric C. Edison, Esq. 

450 East Las Olas Boulevard

Suite 1400 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 

glemieux@gunster.com 

eedison@gunster.com 

mzayas@gunster.com

dpeterson@gunster.com

eservice@gunster.com

Counsel for Defendant

 By: /s/ Alejandro Brito 

Case 0:22-cv-61842-AHS Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 16 of 16