Some Guy Thinks A Legal Doc Website’s Failure To Report On His Settlement Is Somehow Defamatory

Defamation

from the maybe-you'd-have-better-legal-luck-if-you-understood-the-law dept

Lots of people have really strange ideas about what defamation entails. Far too many people believe defamation occurs anytime their feelings are hurt or they aren’t portrayed in the best light possible.

These people are wrong. Often, those in wrong choose to represent themselves when they desire to be out-tilted by windmills. Sometimes, they retain lawyers, which makes these stupid lawsuits twice as stupid, as one would expect a law school graduate to recognize the folly of these for-hire pursuits and choose not to engage in them.

This is one of the latter. John D. Thomas is aggrieved. In 2016, he was on the receiving end of a court decision that saw him sanctioned for abusing the legal process during a courtroom battle over alleged fraud. Here’s the relevant part of California Appeals Court decision, as posted by legal doc compiler, Leagle.

John David Thomas and 184 Diamond, LLC (defendants), appeal from a default judgment entered after the trial court imposed terminating sanctions against Thomas for misuse of the discovery process. Following a default prove-up hearing, the court awarded plaintiff Farah Modarres a total of $217,000 in compensatory damages against defendants and $1 million in punitive damages against Thomas only. Defendants argue the trial court abused its discretion by imposing terminating sanctions against Thomas because a lesser sanction would have been sufficient. They also challenge the punitive damages award against Thomas on the grounds Modarres presented insufficient evidence of Thomas’s net worth at trial, the punitive damages award was unconstitutionally excessive in amount, and the award erroneously excluded 184 Diamond, LLC, which was otherwise jointly and severally liable with Thomas for compensatory damages.

We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing terminating sanctions against Thomas for his misuse of the discovery process.

That wasn’t the end of John Thomas’ story, however. As the Volokh Conspiracy notes, Thomas managed to settle his way out of this predicament.

[O]n remand, the case settled (according to a later appellate decision, “Modarres and Thomas settled the lawsuit without involving the law firm [that had represented Modarres], allegedly depriving the law firm of its fees”).

However, Leagle did not post documents about this settlement, which arrived more than six years after the original decision. Thomas appears to believe Leagle is obligated to post any and all court documents related to him and this case. That’s the gist of his especially stupid libel lawsuit [PDF] against Leagle, which hilariously claims a failure to report slightly better news about Thomas and his legal problems is a legitimate cause of action.

Defendants maintain an internet website that purports to provide information about legal cases. Defendants published and continue to publish information regarding a legal case against plaintiff which left the false impression that judgment was in effect against him, including for fraud, when in fact the case was dismissed. In spite of amicable demand, defendant failed and resumed to remove or correct the information, causing damage to plaintiff’s reputation and business interests.

First, sites are under no legal obligation to perform followup reporting on legal cases. That tends to suck for people accused of crimes but are never charged or convicted. And it obviously sucks for Thomas, whose vanity searches apparently bring up Leagle’s posting (verbatim and unaltered) of a legal decision involving Thomas.

I assume his lawyer, David Epstein, meant to write “refused,” rather than “resumed.” As the complaint stands now, it gives the impression Leagle cooperated with Thomas’ requests and he’s just suing because he’s still angry about the initial post. But that’s not the only crucial error in the opening paragraphs of this lawsuit.

Defendants published and continue to publish a report on a lawsuit whose short title is Modarres v. Thomas, whose trial court case number was 07CC03908, and whose appellate number was G048684/G050017. A true copy of this report as posted on February 1, 2023 at www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20150413036., is attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated in this paragraph by reference as if it was set forth in full. Among other things, the matter published states that plaintiff Thomas was adjudged guilty of civil fraud in the lawsuit and implies that this finding was final and in effect.

Well… Exhibit 1 is just white space.

And the “incorporated report” isn’t actually incorporated. The link provided by Thomas’ lawyer links to an entirely different Leagle post that doesn’t involve Thomas in any way. That’s not a fatal error (the lawsuit’s inability to grasp the complexities simplicities of defamation law is the real killer here) but it sure looks sloppy.

According to Thomas (and his lawyer), Leagle’s failure to remove the original decision or post information about the settlement Thomas agreed to is defamatory. And that defamation by omission (I guess…) is making it more difficult for Thomas to find work in the real estate development field.

All of that may be true but it still isn’t defamation. And this makes no sense whatsoever.

By reason of this publication, Leagle falsely implied that Thomas had been finally adjudged guilty of civil fraud, and was held for punitive damages.

An unaltered legal decision posted verbatim is incapable of “falsely implying” anything. Leagle, by posting it in this fashion, is incapable of “falsely implying” anything. That Thomas’ request to have his settlement posted on Leagle’s website went rebuffed means nothing. The original decision may no longer be in effect due to the settlement between Thomas and his legal adversaries, but that isn’t defamation. It’s just the facts, even if those facts have since been superseded.

This case isn’t going to go anywhere. Everything about it is wrong, even when taking into consideration the fact that Thomas is likely not a public figure, which lowers the bar for defamation claims. And, as Eugene Volokh points out in his post, it appears Leagle is no longer a viable entity. If so, it may make it easier for Thomas to obtain a default judgment, but Thomas shouldn’t be given a win just because the other team failed to show up. It’s a bad lawsuit with zero legal basis and should be dismissed with prejudice by the first judge that lays their eyes on it.

Filed Under: defamation, john d. thomas
Companies: leagle