Opinion ID: 4195259
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Record Supports Defamation by

Text: Cities Hall has a viable defamation claim because a reasonable jury could find on this record that Cities employees acted in bad faith by reporting Hall to the police as having committed felony theft. Defamation consists of: 13 (1) . . . a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff; (2) that the defendant published . . . without privilege to a third party; (3) [with] fault . . . amount[ing] to at least negligence; and (4) either . . . the statement was actionable as a matter of law irrespective of special harm [i.e.the loss of something having economic or pecuniary value caused by someone other than the defamer,] or . . . its publication caused the plaintiff special harm. Williams v. District of Columbia, 9 A.3d 484, 491 (D.C. 2010); see Charlton v. Mond, 987 A.2d 436, 438 n.4 (D.C. 2010) (“Publication of defamatory matter is its communication . . . to one other than the person defamed.”) (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 577(1) (1977)). A statement that falsely imputes a criminal offense is defamatory per se. See Smith v. District of Columbia, 399 A.2d 213, 220 (D.C. 1979); see also Von Kahl v. Bureau of Nat’l Affairs, Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 204, 218 (D.D.C. 2013). District of Columbia law provides a qualified privilege to any person who reports a crime, as long as the “statement about suspected wrongdoing is made in good faith to law enforcement authorities.” Carter v. Hahn, 821 A.2d 890, 894 (D.C. 2003) (quoting Columbia First Bank v. Ferguson, 665 A.2d 650, 655 (D.C. 1995)). No privilege attaches to a statement made “without just cause or excuse, with such a conscious indifference or reckless disregard as to its results or effects upon the rights or feelings of others as to constitute ill will.” Id. (quoting Columbia First Bank, 665 A.2d at 656). A jury could reasonably conclude that Cities acted in bad faith when it called the police. As described above, the record supports an inference that Cities reported Hall for theft of services in the first degree—a felony that is triggered by theft 14 of $1,000 or more. A reasonable jury could conclude that Cities’ employees negligently made a false report, indifferent to or reckless of its effects on Hall, for at least two reasons. First, as discussed above, a reasonable jury could conclude that Cities charged Hall in full or, indeed, that Cities overcharged her by keeping the cash in the bill book as well as charging Hall’s credit card, which a reasonable jury could also conclude, Cities had already charged for the full amount of the party’s food and alcohol. Second, given that the restaurant stamped the hands of patrons upon entry in the apparent expectation that they might come and go throughout the evening, Hall had not retrieved the credit card and driver’s license she turned over when the party arrived, and Hall’s friends and many of her possessions were still at the table they had occupied with Hall throughout the evening, a reasonable jury also could conclude that Cities lacked any reasonable basis to believe that Hall’s exit from the restaurant was anything but temporary. Accordingly, we vacate summary judgment on Count VIII alleging defamation against Cities.