Counterclaim & Add a Third Party?

[ryandan3891]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law) Indiana

I followed a female shoplifter down the road from my place of business. The police were "on their way". She was screaming all kinds of false allegations of assault, physically and sexually about me to anyone she came near. I started recording this event because of the allegations. Her husband shows up and after a confrontation they get in the vehicle and pull away. I never once made any allegations about the husband and none about anyone in the video. I posted the video on YouTube through an account with a false name. They saw the video and the husband is suing me for defamation, taking and posting a video without his consent and false allegations with his license plate exposed to the public. I have the police log naming me as the primary complainant proving the crime happened and he knowingly helped her flee, making him an accomplice, there doesn't have to be consent to take and post video of someone in public and there is no expectation of privacy in a license plate. I know that he has no case. I planned on filling a case against the wife. I have video and witnesses to her defamation but someone suggested because the husbands case is the same event as the case against the wife that I would have to add her as a third party and file a counterclaim. Is this true and if so would I claim defamation against her and being wrongfully sued against him?

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law) Indiana

I followed a female shoplifter down the road from my place of business. The police were "on their way". She was screaming all kinds of false allegations of assault, physically and sexually about me to anyone she came near. I started recording this event because of the allegations. Her husband shows up and after a confrontation they get in the vehicle and pull away. I never once made any allegations about the husband and none about anyone in the video. I posted the video on YouTube through an account with a false name. They saw the video and the husband is suing me for defamation, taking and posting a video without his consent and false allegations with his license plate exposed to the public. I have the police log naming me as the primary complainant proving the crime happened and he knowingly helped her flee, making him an accomplice, there doesn't have to be consent to take and post video of someone in public and there is no expectation of privacy in a license plate. I know that he has no case. I planned on filling a case against the wife. I have video and witnesses to her defamation but someone suggested because the husbands case is the same event as the case against the wife that I would have to add her as a third party and file a counterclaim. Is this true and if so would I claim defamation against her and being wrongfully sued against him?

Have you been served with a summons and complaint already?

 

[ryandan3891]

Have you been served with a summons and complaint already?

Yes I have been served

 

[quincy]

Whenever you are sued, it is generally smart to consult with an attorney in your area. After reading through your description of the events leading up to the lawsuit filed against you, this is what I advise that you do.

That said, here is a link to Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/trial_proc/#_Toc407089038

See Rule 7, Rule 13(H), Rule 19 and Rule 20.

You will need to familiarize yourself with these Rules if you intend to move ahead in this suit on your own. I think it could be a mistake if you do.

Good luck.

 

[LdiJ]

You do realize how much simpler this whole situation would have been had you NOT posted that video to YouTube? Why did you do that?

 

[Zigner]

How did the woman defame you?

 

[Zigner]

You do realize how much simpler this whole situation would have been had you NOT posted that video to YouTube? Why did you do that?

I totally agree...what a bonehead move.

 

[justalayman]

I don't have a problem with putting idiots on YouTube. Of course you may have to defend against a frivolous suit but if you are willing but...

Op mentions something about the guy being an accomplice. If op did state the guy had committed a criminal act op may have a bit more to worry about



I'm curious though; is this guy suing you in your individual capacity or as an agent of the company and as such including the company in the suit.

 

[latigo]

What the blazes were you thinking!

You've irresponsibly broadcast to the world that the plaintiff was a participant in the commission of a criminal act with absolutely no proof other than your personal opinion based on nothing but guesswork. A conjecture formed solely on your observation that he transported the alleged perp away from the store. And that ain't going to fly in a court of law.

Moreover, if you think you are going to acquire a working understanding of the Rules of Civil Procedure simply by reading them, think again. In law schools courses on the subject have been known to spawn window jumpers.

What you need to do is to find an experienced trial lawyer willing to defend you after handing him a fist full of Ben Franklins..

My guess is that such a lawyer will scuttle this notion of joining the wife as a defendant to a claim for defamation. Where are you going to find the witnesses to her alleged slandering? And even if so, will they testify that they believed her wild accusations?

As P. G. Wodehouse often wrote about his fictional character Bertie Wooster, "you are in the soup up to your thorax".

 

[quincy]

YouTube videos have resulted in several suits in the past, much to the surprised dismay of the videographers. I think many people assume that if what they video-record is video-recorded in a public place that publishing the video online is legal. This can be a wrong (and ultimately costly) assumption.

If ryandan's video has any commentary or comments that state or imply unproven criminal acts on the part of the woman and her husband (even if the statement or implication is just the "title" used for the video), this could support the defamation claim of the husband. False light is also a legal action that could be considered.

ryandan needs both the video and the facts personally reviewed by an attorney in his area to see where he stands legally against the husband's claims. I do not share his (rather optimistic) view that the husband has no case. And I definitely do not think this is something he should attempt to handle on his own. If he read through the Rules provided in the link above, perhaps he realizes how difficult it will be for him to learn what he needs to learn in order to get out of the mess he seems to have created with his video.

Edit to add: ryandan, if you have not removed your video already (or if it has not been removed for you), I recommend you do this now. Although you might think the husband's suit has no merit, if it DOES (and I think it could), removing the video can help to mitigate any damages awarded against you.

 

[Zigner]

How did the woman defame you?

I'm just asking this again so that the OP has a chance to respond. I think the question may have gotten lost in the mix.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law) Indiana

... She was screaming all kinds of false allegations of assault, physically and sexually about me to anyone she came near. I started recording this event because of the allegations ...

Zigner, see what I have quoted above from ryandan's original post. I believe he believes he can use these false allegations as the basis for a defamation suit against the woman.

Although under some, even many, circumstances this could be true, I am thinking that he will have a hard time using the shouts of the woman to support his own suit. Seeing as how ryandan was apparently chasing the woman down the street, the woman's shouts could easily be seen as her attempt to get help - in much the same way it is advised for people to shout "fire" even when there is no fire, this to attract attention.

 

[Zigner]

Zigner, see what I have quoted above from ryandan's original post. I believe he believes he can use these false allegations as the basis for a defamation suit against the woman.

Although under some, even many, circumstances this could be true, I am thinking that he will have a hard time using the shouts of the woman to support his own suit. Seeing as how ryandan was apparently chasing the woman down the street, the woman's shouts could easily be seen as her attempt to get help - in much the same way it is advised for people to shout "fire" even when there is no fire, this to attract attention.

Gotcha, agreed.

 

[ryandan3891]

You do realize how much simpler this whole situation would have been had you NOT posted that video to YouTube? Why did you do that?

I posted the video because it was a first hand account of what happened. Beyond that the only thing I say in the video is at one point I said "Now I have your plate" other than that you hear me talking to police on the phone about where we are. I never make any claim in the video. The title I posted the video under was Crazy Menards Shoplifter. If few days later after I was fired I removed the video.

 

[Zigner]

I posted the video because it was a first hand account of what happened. Beyond that the only thing I say in the video is at one point I said "Now I have your plate" other than that you hear me talking to police on the phone about where we are. I never make any claim in the video. The title I posted the video under was Crazy Menards Shoplifter. If few days later after I was fired I removed the video.

In other words, you've accused them of shoplifting...