*

Honorable Jerome Farris, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the

Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

No. 94-6668.

K. Carl LITTLE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Debbie BRELAND, Mobile Press Register, Inc., DefendantsAppellees,

Robert O. Bostwick, Jr., Mobile Convention and Visitor's

Corporation, Defendants,

AmSouth Bank N.A., Commonwealth National Bank, Gulf Federal Bank,

Garnishee.

Sept. 5, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Alabama. (No. 92-0820-CB-C), Charles R. Butler, Jr.,

Chief Judge.

Before EDMONDSON and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and FARRIS*

, Senior

Circuit Judge.

FARRIS, Senior Circuit Judge:

K. Carl Little appeals the district court's holding that his

resignation as president of the Mobile Convention & Visitors

Corporation was a matter of public controversy thereby making

Little a limited purpose public figure. He contends that the

district court erred in instructing the jury that he must prove the

Mobile Press Register acted with actual malice to establish

liability. We AFFIRM.

Little sued The Mobile Press Register, Inc., reporter Debbie

Breland, The Mobile Convention & Visitors Corporation, and interim

president Bobby Bostwick for defamation. The Mobile Convention &
Visitors Corporation, a non-profit corporation created to provide

sales and marketing services and to attract conventions to Mobile,

hired Little as its president on April 27, 1992. The suit involves

comments made by Bostwick and reported by Breland in an article

appearing in the Press-Register on May 20, 1992. The article

reported Little's firing by the Mobile Convention & Visitors

Corporation for alleged sexual misconduct. The district court held

that Little was a limited purpose public figure and was required to

prove actual malice to prevail on his defamation claim. After a

jury trial, Little prevailed against the Mobile Convention &

Visitors Corporation and Bostwick but lost against the Mobile Press

Register and Breland.

DISCUSSION

 Plaintiffs in defamation cases can be characterized as

either: 1) public officials or public figures, 2) limited purpose

public figures, or 3) private individuals. The Supreme Court has

struck a "balance between the needs of the press and the

individual's claim for wrongful injury" by establishing different

tests for different defamation plaintiffs. Gertz v. Robert Welch,

Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 343, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3008-09, 41 L.Ed.2d 789

(1974). A limited purpose public figure is "an individual [who]

voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into a particular public

controversy and thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range

of issues." Id. at 351, 94 S.Ct. at 3013. Public figures "must

prove that the defendant acted with actual malice to establish

liability" when the "defamatory material involves issues of

legitimate public concern." Silvester v. American Broadcasting
Co., Inc. 839 F.2d 1491, 1493 (11th Cir.1988). To show that the

Press-Register acted with "actual malice" by publishing defamatory

material, Little must show that they acted "with knowledge that it

was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or

not." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 280, 84 S.Ct.

710, 726, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964).

 In Silvester, we adopted the three part test set forth in

Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publications, Inc. 627 F.2d 1287

(D.C.Cir.1980), to determine if the plaintiff is a limited purpose

public figure. Under this analysis, we must "(1) isolate the

public controversy, (2) examine the plaintiff's involvement in the

controversy, and (3) determine whether the alleged defamation [was]

germane to the plaintiff's participation in the controversy."

Silvester, 839 F.2d at 1494 (citing Waldbaum ).

I. THE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY

 Little argues that the controversy surrounding his reasons

for leaving the Mobile Convention & Visitors Corporation was not a

"public controversy," but merely "newsworthy." See Silvester, 839

F.2d at 1494 ("[A] public controversy must be more than merely

newsworthy."). If the controversy "will affect people who do not

directly participate in it, the controversy is more than merely

newsworthy and is of legitimate public concern." Id. at 1495. "In

short, ... [i]f the issue was being debated publicly and if it had

foreseeable and substantial ramifications for nonparticipants, it

was a public controversy." Id. The public controversy must have

preexisted the alleged defamation. Id.

The record demonstrates that there was a preexisting public
controversy surrounding both: 1) the leadership of the Mobile

Convention & Visitors Corporation generally, and 2) Little's sudden

unexplained departure specifically. The decision to build the $60

million convention center had been the subject of extensive public

debate. The $1.37 million contract between the City of Mobile and

the Mobile Convention & Visitors Corporation to provide sales and

marketing services and to attract conventions to Mobile was a

matter public controversy.

 The problem with leadership of the Mobile Convention &

Visitors Corporation was a preexisting public controversy as well.

The previous president had been forced out five months earlier,

receiving "a good deal of coverage" in the local media. "To

determine whether a controversy indeed existed ... [t]he court can

see if the press was covering the debate, reporting what people

were saying and uncovering facts and theories to help the public

formulate some judgment." Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1297. Little's

hiring was covered by the local media. He attended a Media

Appreciation Night on May 7. Little was described as "the best

person possible for the job" in a press release. His plans for the

Mobile Convention & Visitors Corporation and reactions to Mobile

and the Convention Center were quoted extensively in the local

media.

On May 15, Mobile Convention & Visitors Corporation officials

issued a press release announcing that Little withdrew his

acceptance of the presidency. On May 16, the Press-Register

published a front-page story on Little's departure entitled "Little

Has "Change of Heart'." Before the allegedly defamatory article
was published, a local television news anchor noted that "[t]his

latest development [Little's departure] raises new concerns about

the MCVC's leadership and its future." The television reporter

also noted: "The question is, was there something so wrong with

Mobile or the MCVC that Little would choose unemployment over the

high-paying convention job here?"

On May 19, two reporters asked Mobile Convention & Visitors

Corporation officials about rumors that Little had been forced to

resign because of sexual misconduct. Several people spoke to

Breland about these rumors and she received an anonymous letter

stating that the "Change of Heart" story was incorrect. Little's

sudden departure from the Mobile Convention & Visitors Corporation

was a public controversy "of legitimate public concern."

Little contends that his resignation was "of no concern to

anyone other than himself" and had no ramifications for

nonparticipants. This is incorrect. The leadership of the Mobile

Convention & Visitors Corporation and the success of the $60

million convention center has "foreseeable and substantial

ramifications" for the entire city of Mobile. The success or

failure of such an expensive endeavor will have a substantial

impact on the City of Mobile's tax base.

II. LITTLE'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE CONTROVERSY

 The second prong of the analysis "addresses the extent to

which the plaintiffs are involved in the public controversy."

Silvester, 839 F.2d at 1496. Little either "(1) must purposely

[try] to influence the outcome of the public controversy, or (2)

could realistically have been expected, because of his position in
 1

The Mobile Press Register also argues that the judgment

should be affirmed because: (1) Little has discharged the Press

Register and Breland by satisfying the judgment against the MCVC

the controversy, to have an impact on its resolution." Id. Even

if Little did not "voluntarily put [himself] in a position to

influence the outcome of the controversy," he was "caught up in the

controversy against his will, [and] assume[d] a prominent position

in its outcome." Id. Little's choice to assume the position of

leadership at the Mobile Convention & Visitors Corporation, an

organization involving public scrutiny, shows a voluntary decision

to place himself in a situation where there was a likelihood of

public controversy. Little was "participating in activities whose

success depends in large part on publicity." Brewer v. Memphis

Publishing Co., 626 F.2d 1238, 1255 (5th Cir.1980). Little

voluntarily accepted a taxpayer-supported job to market the $60

million convention center and attract visitors to Mobile. His

hiring, performance, and firing would all be the subject of public

concern and debate. Little sought out media attention at a press

conference and was the subject of four newspaper articles and eight

television news stories prior to the article in question. Little

was "intimately involved in the public controversy." Silvester,

839 F.2d at 1496.

CONCLUSION

The district court did not err in determining that Little was

a limited purpose public figure for purposes of his leadership of

the Mobile Convention & Visitors Corporation as well as the

controversy surrounding his sudden departure as president of the

organization.1 An "actual malice" jury instruction was properly
and Bostwick, and (2) Little cannot recover additional damages

from the Press Register or Breland after receiving a settlement

in an amount more than his compensatory damages. Since the

district court was correct in determining that Little was a

limited purpose public figure, we do not reach either of these

arguments. 

given.

AFFIRMED.