Opinion ID: 1366169
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: public figure status

Text: We give de novo review to grants of summary judgment by the superior court. See State v. Jennings, 555 P.2d 248, 250 (Alaska 1976). According to Civil Rule 56(c), summary judgment is proper only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [1] Before recovering damages for libel, a public figure or public official must prove that the statement was false and that the false statement was made with actual malice. Moffatt v. Brown, 751 P.2d 939, 941 (Alaska 1988) (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80, 84 S.Ct. 710, 725-26, 11 L.Ed.2d 686, 706 (1964) and Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 155, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 1991, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094, 1111 (1967)). To establish actual malice, a public figure must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the declarant acted with knowledge of the statement's falsity or in reckless disregard of the statement's truth or falsity. Id. For purposes of libel, a public figure is any individual who voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy thereby engag[ing] the public's attention in an attempt to influence its outcome. Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. 323, 351-52, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3012-13, 41 L.Ed.2d 789, 812 (1974). In some cases, the question whether a person is a public figure can be resolved only after an evidentiary hearing. Rebozo v. Washington Post Co., 637 F.2d 375, 379 (5th Cir.1981). However, in the instant case, the facts relating to Rybachek's status as a public figure are uncontroverted. Therefore, the question can be resolved on summary judgment. See id. The superior court concluded that Rose Rybachek was a public figure, noting that [h]er articles appeared in the `Opinion' section of the News-Miner, and each article contained a disclaimer by the paper that the views expressed by plaintiff did not necessarily represent those of the News-Miner. Given the tone and substance of her column and the fact that Rybachek owned a gold mine herself, the superior court found that the column to which Larry Sutton was responding was obviously not a detached examination of resource development in Alaska. We agree that Rybachek is a public figure within the limited range of issues concerning natural resources and mining in Alaska. She has voluntarily injected herself into public controversy with regard to those issues by authoring the biweekly column in the News-Miner, and by serving as director of Alaska Women in Mining, president of the Alaska Miners Association, president of the Livengood/Tolovana Mining District, and editor of the Alaska Miners Association's monthly journal. Since Sutton's statements about Rybachek fall within this range of issues, Sutton is afforded the first amendment protections which were enunciated in New York Times. As a public figure, Rybachek must prove both that the statements made by Sutton were false and that they were made with actual malice before she can recover damages for libel.