Id. (citing Trotter, 818 F.2d at 433; Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publications, Inc., 627 F.2d 1287, 1296-98 (D.C.Cir.1980)). The Court summarized as follows: In a public-figure defamation case, a libel defendant is entitled to summary judgment under rule 166a(c) by negating actual malice as a matter of law. Code Ann. 683 S.W.2d 369, 374-75 (Tex.1984). Huckabee, 19 S.W.3d at 424. 2000). Leyendecker is inapposite; it involved a showing of common-law malice to support exemplary damages, not a showing of constitutional actual malice required of a public-figure plaintiff to establish defamation. Wamstad also points to the divorce court's judgment granting Wamstad a separation from Rumore on the grounds of attempted murder. out of it. Wamstad argues that at most only personal disputes are involved, that there is no public controversy in the sense that the public is affected by these disputes in any real way. That is, the judge's disagreement with Rumore's assertion of self-defense does not raise a fact question whether Rumore herself believed her Statement that she acted in self-defense was false. 5251 Spring Valley Rd. In essence, he argues that falsity of the Statements is probative of actual malice. Again, the press covered the personal aspects of the rivalry between the parties, reporting that both sides claimed total victory. Moreover, even assuming Wamstad's expert's testimony is admissible, the opinion on the Media Defendant's alleged failure to investigate speaks, rather, to an alleged disregard of a standard of objectivity. Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1297. She also describes her subsequent divorce from Wamstad in 1987 and her post-divorce suit against Wamstad in 1995, alleging that he defrauded her with respect to her earlier community-property settlement.2 Trial in that case was pending at the time the Article was published. Bob Sambol bought the place from Wamstad and turned it into Bob's Steak & Chophouse in 1994. The article also stated that son Roy Wamstad recounted at least eleven separate instances in which he asserted Wamstad physically abused him and his mother. "The court can see if the press was covering the debate, reporting what people were saying and uncovering facts and theories to help the public formulate some judgment." Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Independent evidence is required: While it is conceivable that a defendant's trial testimony, under the rigors of cross-examination, could provide the requisite proof, it is more likely that plaintiff will have to secure that evidence elsewhere. Indulging all inferences in Wamstad's favor, nonetheless, the Statements in the Article were not inherently improbable or based on obviously dubious information. The contours of the controversy requirement are at least partly defined by the notion that public-figure status attaches to those who "invite attention and comment" because they have thrust themselves to the forefront of a public controversy "to influence the resolution of the issue involved." We reject this argument, just as the court in Huckabee did. Casso v. Brand, 776 S.W.2d 551, 558 (Tex. 2002) (reviewing finding of actual malice for sufficiency, incorporating clear and convincing standard on review). This reliance is misplaced. Tex. r. Civ. Lena Rumore, ex-wife of Dallas steakhouse mogul Dale Wamstad (III Forks, Del Frisco's), will get a shot at the skillful restaurateur's beefy wallet. Casso v. Brand, 776 S.W.2d 551, 558 (Tex.1989). The Shire has new ownership. Furthermore, that Rumore confessed to confusion about past events, and that Stuertz thought her remarrying Wamstad was not logical, are not probative of whether Stuertz believed the Statements, as they appeared in the Article, were false. Legal Principles Governing Defamation and Public-Figure Status. In an extensive affidavit, Stuertz stated the following, among other things: In researching for the Article, he interviewed at least nineteen people, reviewed numerous court documents (listing fifty-seven documents), court transcripts, and numerous newspaper articles concerning Wamstad (listing forty-eight newspaper articles). Emmerdale and The Hunt for Raoul Moat star Dale Meeks dies age 47: Ant McPartlin and Declan Donnelly lead the tributes for 'loved and respected' actor whose career began in Byker Grove. denied) (defendant's testimony established plausible basis for professed belief in truth of publication, thus negating actual malice even if publication not substantially correct). Dracos, 92 S.W.2d at 255. at 466. 1988) (businessman, the subject of consumer complaints and suits, was public figure because by his conduct he "voluntarily engaged in a course that was bound to invite attention and comment"). Rem. 8. In an advertisement in the Dallas Morning News, Wamstad reportedly "blasted" Chamberlain for picking on Dee Lincoln, Wamstad's former partner and current manager of a Del Frisco's restaurant. The record refers to Wamstad's involvement in at least ten restaurants since 1977 and contains court documents concerning legal disputes over at least four different restaurants, involving four different former associates. Rumore and the Divorce Judge's Pronouncement, As to Rumore, Wamstad relies on additional evidence, including evidence of a polygraph he purportedly passed, refuting Rumore's allegations of abuse. 5. Even if Williams was not joking when he stated the draft article was libelous as written, it is irrelevant whether Williams himself or someone else edited the Article before publication; Williams unequivocally testifies in his affidavit that the Article as published did not contain statements he believed were false or about which he entertained doubts. "`By publishing your views you invite public criticism and rebuttal; you enter voluntarily into one of the submarkets of ideas and opinions and consent therefore to the rough competition in the marketplace.'" Moreover, even assuming Wamstad's expert's testimony is admissible, the opinion on the Media Defendant's alleged failure to investigate speaks, rather, to an alleged disregard of a standard of objectivity. One article in the New Orleans Times-Picayune, entitled "Wounded husband called "a raging bull,'" quoted testimony from the trial of at least three witnesses who described instances they witnessed of Wamstad's physical abuse of Rumore before the shooting. Cos., 684 F. Supp. That is, the judge's disagreement with Rumore's assertion of self-defense does not raise a fact question whether Rumore herself believed her Statement that she acted in self-defense was false. We disagree. Chamberlain expressed the view that Wamstad wanted to create some publicity for his new steakhouse and was doing it at the expense of Chamberlain's reputation. Make a one-time donation today for as little as $1. Public figures have assumed the risk of potentially unfair criticism by entering into the public arena and engaging the public's attention. Steaks Unlimited, Inc. v. Deaner, 623 F.2d 264, 273 (3d Cir.1980) (intensive advertising and continuing access to media made libel plaintiff a limited public figure). This reliance is misplaced. Wamstad opened III Forks in August 1998 and sold it in July 2000. Before Justices MOSELEY, O'NEILL, and LAGARDE. Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 548-49. The Dallas Times Herald published two pieces on the dispute, one entitled Dueling Steak Knives. The Dallas Morning News also covered the story, quoting Piper's and Wamstad's personal comments about each other.6, In 1995, Wamstad's business and personal reputation gained national press attention when he sued Ruth Fertel for defamation over her suggestion that Wamstad was behind the Top-Ten List. The evidence includes an Associated Press article, from November 1994, that chronicled the long-standing personal rivalry between Fertel and Wamstad7 and also reported Fertel's allegation that Wamstad was behind the supposedly independent Top-Ten rating. How are you doing?Child 1 (Dale, Jr.): Hi, daddy.Child 2 (Shelby Rose): Hi, daddy.C1: Daddy, why is III Forks called III Forks?Dale: Well, Dale, before Dallas was Dallas, it was a III Forks territory.C1: Daddy, why don't the steaks at III Forks sizzle?Dale: Well, honey, when butter starts to sizzle, it's turning to grease.C2: Oh, my gosh. All Defendants sought summary judgment, which the trial court denied, and all Defendants appealed. We disagree that no public controversy existed. Wamstad's reliance on Wilson v. UT Health Center is also misplaced. Details on the shooting from the Dallas Observer: The purse on the sofa held the .25-caliber semiautomatic pistol her husband had given her two years earlier to protect herself when she closed the. See City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678-79 (Tex.1979). In deciding whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, we take evidence favorable to the non-movant as true; we indulge every reasonable inference, and resolve any doubt, in favor of the non-movant. The family he abandoned in New Orleans has a bone to pick with that." The Dallas Morning News also covered the story, quoting Piper's and Wamstad's personal comments about each other. Certain Defendant-Appellants filed no-evidence motions for summary judgment under rule 166a(i), which we need not address because we dispose of all issues based on Defendants' traditional motions for summary judgment under rule 166a(c). The email address cannot be subscribed. By publishing your views you invite public criticism and rebuttal; you enter voluntarily into one of the submarkets of ideas and opinions and consent therefore to the rough competition in the marketplace. Id. Moreover, the judge's assessment is not probative of whether Rumore believed in the truth of the other Statements she made or whether she entertained doubts as to their truth. Wamstad had not reacted to the advertisement before. In sum, we conclude that Wamstad has failed to raise a fact question on actual malice. Although at trial the libel plaintiff must establish actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, at the summary judgment stage the court applies the traditional summary-judgment jurisprudence in testing whether the evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact. Rumore filed the suit shortly after Wamstad sold his interest in Del Frisco's restaurants for nearly $23 million. In addition, a reporter may rely on statements by a single source, even though they reflect only one side of the story, without manifesting a reckless disregard for the truth. When asked shortly thereafter about the comment, she stated she thought the statement was "partly in jest and partly reflected that he was still working on the story.". For example, in 1995, the Dallas Morning News described Wamstad as "a colorful and controversial member of the Dallas restaurant scene since arriving from New Orleans in 1989." Through his promotion of his family-man image in his advertising over the years, Wamstad voluntarily sought public attention, at the very least for the purpose of influencing the consuming public. The standards for reviewing summary judgment under rule 166a(c) are well established. She alleged Wamstad had defrauded her with respect to her earlier property settlement, in 1992, for $45,000. Once the defendant has produced evidence negating actual malice as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to present controverting proof raising a genuine issue of material fact. The record evidence shows that around the time Rumore was tried for shooting Wamstad, in 1986, he began to receive considerable press attention concerning his domestic life. Whether a party is a public figure is a question of constitutional law for courts to decide. In 1996, the Dallas press noted that Wamstad was "known for getting embroiled in legal battles with former business partners and rival steakhouse chains." In Wilson, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's determination that the libel plaintiff adduced "insufficient evidence of malice." Civ. 973 F.2d 1263, 1270-71 (5th Cir. For example, at the time of the dispute with Piper, the Dallas press reported that Wamstad ran an advertisement stating, I've done some stupid things in my life, but selling my steakhouse to my attorney has to top the list and another one in which he accused Piper of running a clone restaurant. Wamstad's big beef If you think III Forks owner Dale Wamstad--and his 257-year-old alter ego, Capt. San Antonio Exp. . Labour has taken 1.5million from a Just Stop Oil-backing green energy boss, it emerged yesterday. Code Ann. Dale Wamstad sells development just east of Richardson's CityLine. The Dallas Times Herald published two pieces on the dispute, one entitled "Dueling Steak Knives." Lena Rumore, ex-wife of Dallas steakhouse mogul Dale Wamstad (III Forks, Del Frisco's), will get a shot at the skillful restaurateur's beefy wallet. The second best result is Dale Tervooren age 30s in McKinney, TX in the Eldorado neighborhood. stating that because the plaintiff and a judge disagreed with a source's characterization of a statement is not evidence that the media defendant reiterating the statement acted with actual malice, relying on the substantial media coverage of Wamstad and numerous articles written about him over the past 15-plus years, and "the public nature of the debate over his contentious relationships through his personal self-promotion in his advertising and his other interactions with the press-with all their attendant ramifications for the opinion-forming, consuming public" to conclude that a public controversy existed. For example, in the fall of 1989, the Dallas press carried at least four articles discussing the business-turned-legal dispute between Wamstad and Mike Piper, his former attorney, after Piper acquired a Del Frisco's restaurant from Wamstad. See Howell v. Hecht, 821 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, writ denied) (concluding similar language negated actual malice). He was advised not to discuss matters subject to attorney-client privilege, and then Wamstad's attorney asked, "What was the next personal involvement you had regarding anything with Dale Wamstad or a proposed article on Dale Wamstad?" at 558-59. Williams testified on deposition that he spoke with Lyons, and they talked about what the Observer's lawyer and Williams had previously discussed. Independent evidence is required: Id. See Casso, 776 S.W.2d at 555. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. At that time, Wamstad . To establish reckless disregard in this context, a defamation plaintiff must prove that the publisher entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. Id. at 558-59. Even after Rumore was acquitted based on self-defense, the New Orleans press continued to cover the couple's subsequent suits against each other, including Wamstad's suit in 1997 against Rumore for damages from shooting him and Rumore's subsequent countersuit for $5 million. "Actual malice is defined as the publication of a statement `with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.'" Nixon v. Mr. Although as a whole the Article is unfavorable to Wamstad, it states that Wamstad both in media interviews and under oath in court has steadfastly denied ever abusing any member of his family. It also includes favorable statements about Wamstad made by his current father-in-law. Rumore contends Del Frisco's sale to publicly traded Lone Star unleashed the public filing of records with the Securities and Exchange Commission, revealing the true value and ownership structure of the Del Frisco's steak empire. Wilson was not a public-figure case, that court applied federal procedural standards, and in a cryptic discussion it used the general term malice, giving no indication it was applying the constitutional actual malice standard that we must apply here. Now he knows enough about those events to damage just about any top official's reputation. A failure to investigate fully is not evidence of actual malice; a purposeful avoidance of the truth is. Turner, 38 S.W.3d at 120. And the evidence shows that Wamstad used his access to the media to comment on his rivals and his business disputes. However, leave Dee Lincoln and Del Frisco's . Broad. Limited-purpose public figures are only public figures for a limited range of issues surrounding a particular public controversy. Select this result to view Dale Francis Wamstad's phone number, address, and more. She created the high-end wine, martini and champagne lounge with the Cowboys, Legends Hospitality Management and her brother, Ricky Comardelle. Through the 1990s, Wamstad advertised in both print media and radio, using an image of himself as a family-man and folksy steakhouse owner to promote his restaurants. The purpose of the actual-malice standard is protecting innocent but erroneous speech on public issues, while deterring calculated falsehoods. Turner v. KTRK Television, Inc., 38 S.W.3d 103, 120 (Tex.2000). It also includes favorable statements about Wamstad made by his current father-in-law. 175 years later on November 8th, 2011 Tuesday night at 8:30 pm in a Texas Hold-em poker game, Dale Francis Wamstad went all in with The Four Sisters. To maintain a defamation cause of action, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant (1) published a statement (2) that was defamatory concerning the plaintiff (3) while acting with either actual malice, if the plaintiff was a public figure, or negligence, if the plaintiff was a private individual, regarding the truth of the statement. (quoting St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731, 88 S.Ct. 1989). It reportedly escalated from there. WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex. 9. 00-02758-C, Gary Hall, J. J. Michael Tibbals, Joseph A. Barbknecht, J. Brantley Saunders, The Barbknecht Firm, P.C., David G. Allen, Stacy Conder, L.L.P., Charles L. Babock, Jim (James) McCown, Jackson Walker, LLP, Dallas, for appellants. See Bentley, 94 S.W.3d at 596. Wamstad's Dallas Del Frisco's restaurant regularly appeared near the top of the Knife and Fork Club of America's top-ten list of steakhouses in the country (Top-Ten List). Veteran restaurateur Dale Wamstadt plans to open Four Sisters Cafe on April 18.It's his first big new restaurant in years. In sum, we conclude that Wamstad has failed to raise a fact question on actual malice. Thus, the issue of credibility does not preclude summary judgment on the issue of actual malice. We conclude that Williams' not recalling his next personal involvement with the Article does not contradict his later affidavit testimony that the Statements in the Article were not published with actual malice. The contours of the controversy requirement are at least partly defined by the notion that public-figure status attaches to those who invite attention and comment because they have thrust themselves to the forefront of a public controversy to influence the resolution of the issue involved. Gertz, 418 U.S. at 345, 94 S.Ct. Lyons testified on deposition that Williams commented to her that the draft article was "libelous as hell, but it won't be when I'm through with it." We conclude that evidence is merely cumulative of Wamstad's testimony asserting Rumore's allegations are false. After he sold his interest in Del Frisco's, Wamstad continued to use his "family values" to promote his new restaurant, III Forks, which he opened in 1998. Wamstad's ex-wife, Lena Rumore, describes alleged incidents of Wamstad's physical abuse of her, her shooting of Wamstad in 1985, and the ensuing trial in which she was acquitted based on self-defense. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 572-73. She also describes her subsequent divorce from Wamstad in 1987 and her post-divorce suit against Wamstad in 1995, alleging that he defrauded her with respect to her earlier community-property settlement. Co. L.P., 19 S.W.3d 413, 420 (Tex. She had no knowledge at any time that the Article or any statements in it were false and did not at any time entertain doubts as to the truth of the statements. Once the defendant establishes its right to summary judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact, thereby precluding summary judgment. In 1986, she and partner Dale Wamstad moved Del Frisco's to Dallas where it later mushroomed with success when it was bought by Lone Star Steakhouse and Saloon in 1995. Grease will kill you.Dale: That's right, Shelby Rose And Dale and Shelby Rose, thanks for helping me out today. Prop. If he cannot secure it during the discovery process, he is unlikely to stumble on to it at trial. On May 26, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied Wamstad's attempt to derail his ex-wife's damage suit seeking a portion of the $22.7 million doled out when Lone Star Steak & Saloon purchased Del Frisco's in late 1995. 5. Id. Wamstad asserts six categories of evidence that he contends controvert the Media Defendants' denial of actual malice: (1) the Media Defendants were on notice that Rumore's credibility was questioned by the divorce judge, who questioned her allegations of Wamstad's abuse and her claim that she shot Wamstad in self-defense; (2) in recounting her tale of life with Wamstad, Rumore stated sometimes I'm not sure what is a dream and what is real, but nonetheless, Stuertz admitted Rumore was his main source for the article; (3) the Observer was aware before it published the Article that Wamstad had passed a polygraph examination that contradicted Rumore's allegations of abuse; (4) Stuertz admitted he questioned the logic of Rumore's remarrying Wamstad despite her allegations of previous abuse; (5) Wamstad's media expert testified that the Observer's investigation was grossly inadequate; and (6) on deposition, editor Lyons testified that managing editor Williams stated the Article was libelous as hell, but it won't be when I'm through with it, and Williams testified he had no further personal involvement with the Article after that conversation. TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. The restaurant is the latest culinary project by restaurateur Dale Wamstad. The judge ruled that she had acted in self-defense. Wamstad sued Fertel for defamation, and Fertel countersued for false advertising and unfair competition. To prevail on summary judgment, a defendant must either disprove at least one element of each of the plaintiff's theories of recovery or plead and conclusively establish each essential element of an affirmative defense, thereby rebutting the plaintiff's cause of action. Civ. He was advised not to discuss matters subject to attorney-client privilege, and then Wamstad's attorney asked, What was the next personal involvement you had regarding anything with Dale Wamstad or a proposed article on Dale Wamstad? Williams responded, Beyond that point, I can't specifically recall anything. Wamstad argues this deposition testimony controverts Williams' affidavit testimony that directly negates actual malice. All Defendants sought summary judgment, which the trial court denied, and all Defendants appealed. We disagree. Code Ann. Steaks Unlimited, Inc. v. Deaner, 623 F.2d 264, 273 (3d Cir. The Article is largely a recounting of various interactions with Wamstad as told by his ex-wife, his first-born son Roy, and some of Wamstad's former business associates. Patrick Williams stated the following in his affidavit: He had editorial responsibility for Stuertz's article, and he found Stuertz a most accurate reporter. Huckabee, 19 S.W.3d at 427. It is not enough for the jury to disbelieve the libel defendant's testimony. The guy is a warrior of. Appeal from the 68th District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. Become a member to support the independent voice of Dallas Former Fish chef Chris Svalesen countersued his ex-Fish Partner Steven Upright last month in the latest installment of their ongoing ownership battle in the successful downtown seafood restaurant. The AP article was picked up by numerous Texas newspapers, as well as newspapers in Charleston, Fort Lauderdale, Chicago, Baton Rouge, and Phoenix. The evidence includes an Associated Press article, from November 1994, that chronicled the long-standing personal rivalry between Fertel and Wamstad and also reported Fertel's allegation that Wamstad was behind the supposedly independent Top-Ten rating. I spend Sundays with my family." He challenged nearly all of the statements in the Article as defamatory, as well as other statements the Individual Defendants allegedly made to Stuertz that did not appear in the Article (collectively, Statements). He stated that the final result was truthful, accurate, and a fair representation of the reporter's research. He had no knowledge that the Article or any statements in it were false and at no time did he entertain any doubts as to the truth of the statements in the Article.
Charles Raffa Obituary,
Gwenver Beach Shipwreck,
David Feeney Leeds City Council,
Articles D
