Opinion ID: 2637103
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defamation claims against Hartle and the CBJ

Text: 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.