1. As noted by t he di stric t court, “the only r eason there may be defamati on i s not be caus e of the ev i dence bu t becaus e of the de fa ul t.” Spe c i fi c al ly, the al le gati ons of the c om pl aint sto od

un r e fu t e d be ca us e De fe nd a nt s d id n o ta ns we r the co mp l a intin (continued...) 2014 UT App 209

_________________________________________________________



### T HE 

### U T AH 

### C OU RT O F 

### A PPEALS

W ES TM ONT M I R A DO R , LLC AN D T ERRY F OO TE ,

Plainti ffs and Appellants,

v. J OS HUA M I LL ER AN D B R AD N E L S ON , Defendan ts and Appellees.

Mem oran du m D ec i s i on No. 20 13 09 85 -C A Filed September 5, 2014

Second Di stric t Co urt, O gden Department Th e H ono rab le Sc ott M. Ha dl ey No. 120900895

Ch arl es A. Schu ltz , At torn ey f or Ap pe ll an ts Joshua Mi ller and Brad Nelson, Appellees Pro se

J UDG E G REG O RY K. O R ME authore d thi s Memorandum Dec i si on, i n whi ch J UD GE S J AM ES Z. D A V IS and J OHN A. P EA R CE concu rr ed.

ORME , J ud ge:
¶1 We s tm ontMi rad or, L LC an d T err y F oote ( c oll ec ti vel y, Westmont) challenge the di stric t co ur t’s award of only no minal da ma ges to We s tm ontafter th e c ou rt de term ine d, in the c ont ext of enter i ng default judgment ag ainst defendan ts Joshua Mi ller and Brad Nelson, that certain online comments m ade by Miller and Nel s on about Westmont constituted defamati on per se. We affi rm. 1W est mo ntM ira do r v . M ill er

1. (...continued) ti me ly f as hi on. Inpe rtine nt p art, the c om pl aint al le ged tha t Mi ll er and Nelson referre d to Westmont as “croo ks” and “sc am artis ts.”

20130985-CA 2 2014 UT App 209 ¶2 Inorde r to c ons ti tu te d ef am ati on p er s e, the w ords us ed

mus t fi t wi thi n one of a handfu l of well-es tabli shed c ateg or i es. See Baum v. Gillman , 667 P.2d 41, 43 (Utah 1983). At i ssu e i n thi s cas e
a re wor ds that “charge . . . conduct that is incompatible wi th the

exer ci se of a lawful bu siness .” Id. Ordina ri ly, to es tab li s h ac la i m for defamation, a plainti ff m ust demonstrate, inter ali a, that “t he statements resulted indamages.” DeBry v. Godbe, 1999 UT 111, ¶ 8, 99 2 P .2 d 9 79

. How ever, w he n d ef am atory w ords are ac ti onabl e p er se “the law presum es conc lusi vely that damage has followed, and th e plainti ff need n ei ther alleg e nor pr ov e i t.” Nich o ls v . Da ily Reporter Co. , 83 P. 573, 574 (Utah 1905) (ci tatio n a nd int ernal quotat i on marks omitted).

¶3 Th e d i s tri c t c ou rt c onc lu de d th at Mi ll er’s an d N elson’ s onl ine c om me nts ab ou t We s tm ont , a s al le ged in W es tm ont ’s complaint, consti tuted defamation per se and aw arded Westmont

one dol la r as nom i na l d am age s . I td ec line d to a w ard c om pe ns atory or pu ni ti ve d am age s . W es tm ont argu es tha t b ec au s e d am age s are presumed in cas es of defamati on per se, the dis tr i ct court was requi red to aw ard We s tm ontda ma ges s uffi c i en t to d isc ou rage future defamati on. “Whether the di stric t court appli ed the corr ect rul e f or m ea s uring d am age s i s a qu es ti on of la w,” an d w e revi ew i ts deci si on for cor rectness. Maha na v. Onyx Acc eptance Corp. , 2004 UT 59, ¶ 25, 96 P.3d 893.

¶4 Westmont has fai led to supp or t i ts arg ument “with c i tations to t he authoritie s, statutes, and parts of the r ecord r eli ed on.” See Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(9) . “Impli ci tly, rule 24(a)( 9) r equi res not j ust bald c i tation to autho rity but develo pment o f t ha t authority and reasoned analysi s bas ed on that aut hority.” State v. T h om as , 961 P .2 d 299 , 3 05 (U tah19 98 ). We s tm ont ’s bri ef “i de nti fi es no ru le of l a w t hat the dis tr i ct court alleg edly violated” inawarding onlyW est mo ntM ira do r v . M ill er

20130985-CA 3 2014 UT App 209 nom i na l d am age s an d d oes notgo be yon d “b al d c i tati on” to c as es gener ally di scu ssing the doct rine of defamati on per se. SeeSimm o ns M ed ia Gro up, LLC v. W

ayka r, LLC, 2 01 4 UTAp p 1 45 , ¶¶ 37–3 8. “An i na de qu ate ly b ri efed c la i m i s by de fini ti on ins uffi c i en t to d i s c ha rge an ap p e l l a nt ’s burden to demonstrat e tr i al court er ro r,” id. ¶ 37,

an d w e th erefore c onc lu de t hat We s tm ont“h as fa i le d to c arry i ts burden of persuasi on on appeal,” see id. ¶¶ 37, 40.

¶5 Ad di ti ona ll y, W es tm ont ’s pri ma ry argume nt fl i es w i de of the ma rk. Ina c as e of

de fam at ion pe r s e, pre s um ed da ma ge d oes notme antha t th e c ou rt or a jury mu s t aw ard s ub s tan ti almo ne tary damages. Rather, it i s a procedural mechan ism t hat relieves a pl ai n t i ff o f i t s b u r d e no f

p r o v in gd a m a g e s a s a ne l e m e n to f i ts prim a faci e case. See Nich o ls , 8 3 P . a t 574 ( noting t ha t in c as es of de fa ma ti on p er s e, “t he pl ainti ff ne ed ne i the r al le ge n or prove ” ha rm) (c i tati on a nd i nte rna l quo tati on ma rks om i tted ). Thus, e ven when the di stric t c ourt presumes harm in cases inv o l ving defamati on per se , t he court is not r equi red t o pre sum e any particu lar amount of damages beyond no minal damages. See Res tate me nt ( Sec ond ) o f T orts § 6 20 (1 97 7) (“ One w ho i s li ab le fo r a slander acti onable per se . . . i s li able for at least nominal da ma ges .” ). For exa mp le , n o m in a ld a m a g e sa r e a p p r o p r i ate “whe n the in si gni fi cant character o f the defamatory matter , or the plainti ff’s b ad character, lea d s t he [fac tfi nder] to believe that no

s ub s ta n ti a l h a rmh a s b e e nd on e to h i s re p u ta ti on , a n d th e re i s no proo f that serious har m ha s r esulted from the defendant’s attack upon the plainti ff’s character and reputation.” Id. § 620 cmt. a.

¶6 Affi rmed.