Opinion ID: 1771854
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pleading Defamation

Text: Our code of civil procedure sets forth a system of fact pleading. Cox. v. W.M. Heroman & Co., 298 So.2d 848, 855 (La.1974). Article 854 provides that all allegations of fact of the petition ... shall be set forth in numbered paragraphs. The Code further provides that a petition must contain a short, clear, and concise statement of ... the material facts of, the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation.... La. C.Civ.Pro. art. 891(A). To plead material facts, the petitioner must allege more than mixed questions of law and fact, such as that the defendant breached the contract or acted unreasonably. Frank L. Maraist & Harry T. Lemmon, 1 Louisiana Civil Law Treatise Civil Procedure § 6.3, at 102 (1999). Rather, [t]he Code requires the pleader to state what act or omission he or she will establish at trial. Id. (footnote omitted). Fact pleading advances several goals of the petition, such as satisfying the defendant's constitutional guarantee of due process by providing the defendant with fair notice, limiting the issues before the court, and notifying the defendant of the facts upon which the plaintiff bases his claims. See Id. at 101. Thus, to plead material facts, a petitioner alleging a cause of action for defamation must set forth in the petition with reasonable specificity the defamatory statements allegedly published by the defendant. See Acme Stores v. Better Bus. Bureau of Baton Rouge, 225 La. 824, 74 So.2d 43, 44 (1954) (It is not necessary for a plaintiff to state verbatim the words on which he bases his cause of action, but he must allege a state of facts or condition of things which would show fault under article 2315.); Juneau v. Avoyelles Par. Police Jury, 482 So.2d 1022, 1027 (La.App. 3d Cir.1986) (Plaintiff in a defamation suit must name the individual offenders and allege separate acts of defamation as to each, including specific defamatory statements.); Robert D. Sack & Sandra S. Baron, Libel, Slander & Related Problems § 4.3.2 (2d ed. 1994 & Supp. 1998) (citing numerous cases and recognizing that the defendant must be informed of what he or she is alleged to have said in order to be able to prepare a defense); Rodney A. Smolla, Law of Defamation § 12.05[1] (1998) (The tradition in defamation actions is to require that the specific defamatory language be pleaded; this is a widely followed practice even when not strictly required under local pleading rules.). As quoted above, Fitzgerald in her appellate briefs to the court of appeal and to this Court alleges eighteen retaliatory acts committed by Tucker which support the jury's verdict. These acts are listed in the Statement of the Case sections of Fitzgerald's briefs. In the argument sections of her briefs, Fitzgerald refers to many of these acts as defamatory. Specifically, Fitzgerald's brief states that the `Statement of the Case' section reveals instances where Tucker defamed Fitzgerald. Of the eighteen acts listed, Fitzgerald's brief then highlights ten of the most glaring examples of defamation. [4] During oral argument before this Court, Fitzgerald's attorney, in response to the Court's questions, attempted to clarify exactly which of Tucker's statements were allegedly defamatory. Fitzgerald's attorney avowed that the eighteen acts demonstrated Tucker's fault, and that only a few of them were defamatory. Specifically, Fitzgerald's attorney represented during oral argument that Tucker defamed Fitzgerald on three occasions. First, Tucker defamed Fitzgerald during the television interview; second, Tucker defamed Fitzgerald by telling Tucker's wife that Fitzgerald may be indicted; and, third, Tucker defamed Fitzgerald by communicating to Fitzgerald's supervisor at UMC that Fitzgerald was working in violation of law and that she was not credentialed as a substance abuse counselor. A careful review of Fitzgerald's petition for damages, however, reveals that Fitzgerald only alleged that she was defamed twice by Tucker. The first instance, according to Fitzgerald's petition, occurred before, during, or after a meeting of the Acadiana Council on Addictions. Specifically, Fitzgerald's petition reads as follows: 10. At some point before, during or after the meeting on March 9, 1993, of the ACADIANA COUNCIL ON ADDITIONS, [Thomas C. and Karen Tucker] both made statements to people at the meeting that petitioner was and is responsible for causing turmoil between the UMC Counselor Trainees and the [Board]. [5] The second instance of defamation allegedly occurred when Tucker held up Fitzgerald's certificate and later responded to the interviewer's questions about extant unnumbered and improperly signed certificates. Specifically, Fitzgerald's petition reads as follows: 13. During the June 11, 1993, interview, at approximately 6:00 p.m., defendant Thomas C. Tucker held up petitioner's recalled certificate.... 14. Defendant Thomas C. Tucker in the June 11, 1993, interview indicated and affirmed that petitioner's certificate was bogus and that petitioner is ... out there masquerading ... as a substance abuse counselor. In her petition, Fitzgerald never alleges that Tucker published any other defamatory statements which injured Fitzgerald. [6] Moreover, Fitzgerald did not expand the petition by adducing at trial without objection evidence of other allegedly defamatory statements by Tucker. The general rule is that pleadings may be enlarged by evidence adduced without objection when such evidence is not pertinent to any other issue raised by the pleadings and, hence, would have been excluded if objected to timely. La.C.Civ.Pro. art. 1154; Roberson v. Provident House, 576 So.2d 992, 994-95 (La.1991); Webster v. Rushing, 316 So.2d 111, 114-15 & n. 10 (La.1975); Cooper v. Borden, 30,292 (La. App.2d Cir.2/25/98), 709 So.2d 878, 881; Diesi Leasing, Inc. v. Morrow, 542 So.2d 838, 841 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied, 548 So.2d 329 (La.1989). In the instant case, the record reflects, and Fitzgerald's attorney admits in oral argument, that evidence of the eighteen retaliatory acts is relevant to the issue of whether defendant acted with actual malice. We also believe that evidence of the other statements was relevant to whether Tucker intentionally interfered with Fitzgerald's employment contract with UMC. Accordingly, this Court will only review Fitzgerald's allegations that Tucker defamed her at the March 9, 1993 Acadiana Council on Addictions meeting and during the television interview.