Opinion ID: 2637103
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Olivit Fails To Make Out a Claim for Defamation Against the Empire and CBJ Defendants.

Text: Olivit contends that because there were genuine factual disputes, it was error to dismiss his defamation claims against the Empire. To make out a claim for defamation, a plaintiff has to establish (1) a false and defamatory statement; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third party; (3) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and (4) the existence of either `per se' actionability or special harm. [14] A communication is defamatory if it tends to harm the reputation of another so as to lower him or her in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him or her. [15] Under the Alaska Constitution, a defamatory statement may be conditionally privileged if it concerns a matter of public interest. We have stated that there is a paramount public interest permitting persons to speak or write freely without being restrained by the possibility of a defamation action. [16] Therefore, speech on matters of public safety is privileged, but . . . this privilege is conditional and can be lost if the plaintiff proves that the speaker uttered untruths with actual malice. [17] Unlike the majority of courts, we follow the rule that the privilege [of public discussion] extends to non-malicious misstatements of fact. [18] Thus, to make out a claim for defamation based on speech about a matter of public interest, a plaintiff must show that the false and defamatory statements were made with actual malice. [19] Actual malice exists when it is proved that the defamatory statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with a reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. [20] We have applied this standard to both publishers [21] and government speakers. [22] Olivit asserts that three passages in the Empire's story defamed him and are actionable: one regarding his history with the city, another about an incident at the middle school involving his children, and another regarding his plea of guilty to a misdemeanor. History with the city. The article quotes Hartle as saying that the city was looking into Olivit's accusations but that it was skeptical, based on [Olivit's] history with the city. We assume Olivit is alluding, at least in part, to this statement when he notes on appeal that the article states that I had a violent criminal history with the city. In his initial verified complaint Olivit stated that he maintains no history with the City of Juneau. (Emphasis in original.) Olivit's children. Olivit states that his children are not criminals as stated in [the] article. Olivit is apparently referring to the article's statement that Olivit's previous suit against the city grew out of an April 26 incident at Floyd Dryden Middle School involving Olivit's two sons, the older one taking money for the younger one, a student there. In his verified complaint in the case now before us, Olivit stated that [t]he Olivit children were not involved with any criminal activities. In his sworn response to the CBJ's motion for summary judgment, Olivit stated that in fact his son was attacked by a school administrator while engaged in running an errand for his mother by delivery [of] money to his younger brother who attended Floyd Dryden. Misdemeanor guilty plea. The article states that Olivit pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault following the incident at Floyd Dryden Middle School. [23] The Empire admits on appeal that this is incorrect because Olivit entered a guilty plea to misdemeanor disorderly conduct rather than assault. [24] Olivit might be referring to this error when he objects to what he describes as the article's statement that he had a violent criminal history with the city. Because Olivit stated in his verified complaint that he never pled guilty to misdemeanor assault, [25] we assume that Olivit is arguing that he was defamed by the article's misdescription of the misdemeanor to which he pleaded guilty. The article about Olivit generally concerns matters of public interest. A claim that the JPD was harassing members of the public, as Olivit asserted in his lawsuit against Officer Comolli and the JPD, is a matter of public interest because it raises questions about the propriety of official or ostensibly official conduct of JPD officers. Furthermore, Olivit's repeated lawsuits adversely affected the city, especially fiscally, and the financial effect of defense costs is a matter of public interest. And the city attorney's description of lawsuits against the city and his description of the plaintiff in those suits is a matter of public interest. Events at a local middle school that lead to criminal charges and a civil lawsuit are also matters of public interest, as are criminal charges and guilty pleas relating to local events. Therefore, each of the article's three challenged statements is conditionally privileged and not actionable unless it was false and defamatory and uttered with actual malice. [26]
We therefore consider whether there is a potential factual dispute about whether Carroll and the Empire acted with actual malice. Although Olivit asserts that the Empire profited from publishing the allegedly defamatory article, he does not explain how. And even if the Empire did profit, that is not evidence that permissibly implies that the article was published with actual malice. In his verified complaint, Olivit stated that the fact that Tony Carroll and the Juneau Empire failed to confirm anything stated as fact was pure negligence and compounds the malicious act because they were used by the City and its representatives. In his verified response to the CBJ's request for summary judgment, Olivit stated that we can only guess the motivation behind Tony Carroll's actions, they were negligent to say the least. Olivit frequently used the word malicious below and uses the same word in his appellant's brief, but he produced no evidence that Carroll or the Empire acted maliciously. Carroll swore in his affidavit that he believed everything in the article to be true. Carroll also explained in his affidavit that he relied on Alaska Court System records and interviews with four city officials, including Hartle, in writing the article, and that he unsuccessfully attempted to contact Olivit. No evidence rebuts any of these assertions. The record contains no evidence permitting an inference that Carroll knew or should have known before publication that any statement in the article was untrue. We therefore hold that Olivit has not demonstrated that there is a genuine factual dispute about whether Carroll and the Empire acted with actual malice as to the article generally or as to the three passages Olivit discusses on appeal. Olivit seems to assert on appeal that Hartle conspired with Carroll to publish false information about Olivit, but he has pointed to no evidence permitting a reasonable inference of any such conspiracy. We therefore affirm the summary judgment entered in favor of Carroll and the Empire.
Olivit argues that it was error to dismiss the defamation claim against Hartle and the CBJ. He contends that the CBJ defendants deliberately made false statements about Olivit to interfere with Olivit's pending suit against the city and to cause him economic loss. Olivit made a similar claim in his initial verified complaint, where he seemed to imply that Hartle was retaliating against him because Olivit refused, in response to Hartle's demands and threats, to return JPD keys to the city. He claims that Hartle and the CBJ acted with actual malice. We choose to take a different analytical approach in considering whether, as Olivit contends, it was error to dismiss the defamation claims against the CBJ and Hartle. Instead of focusing on the malice issue, we consider whether the challenged statements were false and defamatory as to Olivit and whether Hartle was the source of the published information. Olivit's history. In reference to Olivit's suit against Officer Comolli and the JPD, the article quotes Hartle as saying [w]e are looking into it, but we're skeptical, based on [Olivit's] history with the city. Olivit reads the statement as implying he has a violent criminal history with the city. The context of the article strongly implies that Hartle was referring to Olivit's history of suing the city, not to any criminal history. The headline of the article was City faces fifth lawsuit by man who claims harassment, and Hartle's expression of his skepticism was made in the context of whether Olivit's harassment claims in this, his fifth lawsuit, might be legitimate. Olivit does in fact have a history of bringing suits against the city, so the quoted statement is essentially true and is not defamatory. The statement cannot plausibly be read as implying that the cause of Hartle's expressed skepticism was any violent criminal history Olivit might have had with the city. Olivit's children. Olivit also seems to imply that Hartle provided Carroll with false information regarding the incident with Olivit's children at Floyd Dryden Middle School. Olivit states that the article defamed his family name, and that the defamation was a malicious act perpetrated by John Hartle and Tony Carroll. His brief declares, [m]y children are not criminals as stated in [the] article. He thus seems to imply that Hartle was the source of allegedly false information about his children. In a verified pleading he filed in superior court, Olivit stated that John Hartle was well aware Mr. Olivit's children were not involved in criminal activities at Floyd Dryden Middle School. We doubt that the passage is defamatory. The article's statement that the older one [took] money for the younger one does not state or necessarily imply that the older boy was stealing. By Olivit's own account, his older son was delivering money to the younger one. That is the most plausible way to read the article's words. The article does not suggest that the act of taking the money caused the older boy to be subject to discipline or treated as a juvenile offender or that either boy did anything wrong. The focus of the article was on Olivit's own conduct and the criminal consequences to him. In any event, the reference to his children did not defame Olivit himself. [27] Olivit himself does not have a defamation claim based on any alleged defamation of his children, [28] and he has not attempted to assert a defamation claim on their behalf. Misdemeanor plea. Olivit seems to base his defamation claim against Hartle and the CBJ relating to the article's discussion of the guilty plea on his theory that Hartle intentionally gave erroneous information about the plea to Carroll, who then published it. Olivit stated in his verified response to Hartle and the CBJ's summary judgment motions that Hartle knew beyond any doubt Mr. Olivit did not plead guilty to misdemeanor assault. Olivit's statement in his verified response does not say, but may imply, that Olivit believes Hartle colluded with Carroll to publish false information regarding Olivit's misdemeanor charge, or at least intentionally gave Carroll erroneous information about the plea. But Carroll swore in an affidavit that he believed he utilized the Alaska Court System records system to learn of the 2002 criminal misdemeanor case . . . in which Mr. Olivit pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Olivit does not rebut Carroll's sworn statement or assert that Hartle was the source of the erroneous information; he merely asserts that Hartle knew the information was false. Olivit's statement is consistent with Carroll's assertion that his information came from the public record, which lists the crime charged as Assault  Physical Menace. Moreover, Hartle stated in his affidavit that he made the statements attributed to [him] in the article. The article did not attribute to Hartle any information about the misdemeanor plea. Olivit's evidence was insufficient to rebut Carroll's affidavit and preserve a genuine factual dispute material to his defamation claim against Hartle based on the misdemeanor plea passage. Absent any evidence permitting a reasonable inference that Hartle was a source of the incorrect information published about the guilty plea, the article's discussion of the plea cannot be the basis of a defamation claim against Hartle and the CBJ. In short, even assuming Olivit's sworn pleadings are true, none of the allegedly false and defamatory information Olivit attributes to Hartle can be the basis for the defamation claim. We therefore affirm the summary judgment entered in favor of Hartle and the CBJ.