Michigan
The Court first heard arguments on several issues, included in these issues was that the Plaintiff was a limited public figure. These first Motions for Summary Dispsoition were denied and no mention of Limited Public Figure.
Now, the Judge Grants Summary Disposition and list the Plaintiff as a Limited Public Figure. No new evidence was submitted regarding the Plaintiff being a limted public figure!
Question - Can the Court do this?
ARGUMENT #1 – The Court ERRED in ruling on a question of fact. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff was a Limited Public Figure, something that should have been determined by a Jury.
Court Transcript
THE COURT: Thank you.
He did become somewhat of a limited public figure by his own doing in taking the deer around and displaying it and generated quite a bit of interest in the local community, so he did place himself in the spotlight or limelight. By doing that he was a limited public figure to that degree.
ARGUMENT
On April 3, 2006, Defendants filed a motion for summary disposition based on MCR 2.116(C) (6), (8) and (10). Defendants xxx each filed a “concurrence” with the xxx motion.
7. That since December 19. 2004 the Plaintiff has discussed the deer he took on December 19, 2004:
a. once on the radio;
b. once on television;
c. twice in magazines;
d. six times in newspapers;
e. three times where he appeared at venues for purposes of discussing his successful hunt;
f. and three times at venues where he appeared for purposes of having his picture taken with the eight point buck. (ref: Response to Interr. #3)
On April 24, 2006, the Court heard oral arguments on the xxx motion and took the motion under advisement.
On May 31, 2006, the Court issued its written opinion and an order denying Defendants xxx Motion for Summary Disposition stating:
OPINION AND ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants', xxx, motion for summary disposition is hereby denied.
On April 13, 2005, Defendant xxx filed his own motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C) (8) and (10). Defendants xxx each filed a concurrence with the xxx motion.
7. That since December 19, 2004, Plaintiff has made himself a public figure by involving himself in numerous discussions regarding the eight point white buck and in numerous forums including but not limited to:
a. once on the radio;
b. one on television;
C. twice in magazines;
d. six times in newspapers;
e. three times physically appearing at venues to discuss "his successful hunt"; and
f. three times at venues where he appeared for purposes of having his picture taken with the eight point white buck.
On May 22, 2006, the Court heard oral arguments on the xxx motion and took the motion under advisement.
On June 1, 2006, the Court issued its written opinion and an order denying Defendant xxx Motion for Summary Disposition stating:
OPINION AND ORDER
In viewing this matter in light most favor-able to the non moving party, this Court would find that a tier of fact could conclude that the xxx letter accuses the Plaintiff of either shooting an albino deer or attempting to shoot an albino deer both of which are criminal acts in Michigan and could create a basis for recovery under MCL 600.2911
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant xxx motion for Summary disposition is hereby denied.
On September 14 , 2006, Defendant xxx filed a Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10) which echoed the exact same issues and facts that the Court denied in its June 1, 2006 Order.
8. That since December 19, 2004, Plaintiff has made himself a public figure by involving himself in numerous discussions regarding the eight point white buck and in numerous forums including but not limited to:
a. once on the radio;
b. one on television;
c. twice in magazines:
d. six times in newspapers;
e. three times physically appearing at venues to discuss" his successful
hunt"; and
f. three times at venues where he appeared for purposes of having his picture
taken with the eight point white buck.
On October 17, 2006 Plaintiff did respond to this disputed question of fact in his Answer to Defendant xxx Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition by stating the following:
8. Regarding the term “public figure” as used in libel law, Plaintiff disagrees that he “made himself a public figure” by taking the deer to various forums. The term “public figure” applies to an elected official, or someone who interjects himself into a public controversy, usually political. In this case the Plaintiff was a private citizen acting in a private capacity, not intending to become a part of a political controversy. The issue raised by the Defendant was not that the deer was a white deer, but that the deer was a “neighborhood pet albino deer,” and Defendant clearly asserted that the Plaintiff shot that specific “neighborhood pet,” an assertion that is countered by many facts in this case. The issue raised by the Defendant is not just that the deer was an albino, but that it was the very deer he had been feeding for a number of years.
Defendant xxx argued, several months ago, that Plaintiff was a private figure, which is true. He apparently has switched his position to conform to that of other Defendants who claim that Plaintiff is a public figure. That in itself is a genuine issue of material fact that is in dispute. Defendant xxx reasoning for Plaintiff’s claim to be a private figure is wrong, however, because Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges malice by the Defendants, which happens to be the standard applicable to a public figure. Plaintiff’s purpose is to establish that he qualifies for exemplary damages because of the intentional acts of the Defendant, which does involve a higher burden of proof.
On October 16, 2006, Defendants xxx followed Defendant xxx lead by filing their “Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition” under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10) which echoed the same exact issues and facts that the Court denied in its May 31, 2006 Order.
In their Motion for Summary Disposition Defendants argued the identical following question of fact, under: Brief Statement of Uncontested Facts #4
4. That since December 19, 2004. Plaintiff has made himself a public figure by involving himself in numerous discussions regarding the eight point white buck and Defendant’s letters in numerous public forums including but not limited to:
a. once on the radio;
b. one on television;
c. twice in magazines:
d. six times in newspapers;
e. three times physically appearing at venues to discuss" his successful hunt"; and
f. three times at venues where he appeared for purposes of having his picture taken with the eight point white buck.
These are the exact arguments of material fact that are in dispute and were denied in the Judges Orders on May 31, 2006 and June 1, 2006, then granted in the Judges Order signed on December 1, 2006. Notice their was no new items discovered during discovery.
The Michigan Court of Appeals ERRED in doing the same.
Further, we are satisfied that plaintiff made himself a “limited public figure” for purposes of this particular case. It is undisputed that plaintiff sought out significant media attention. He appeared with his deer at various public venues, in several newspaper and magazine articles, and in at least one television report. Plaintiff, as a limited public figure, was “prohibited from collecting damages from defendants for libel unless [he could] show . . . that defendants made the complained of publication with actual malice.” Lins v Evening News Ass’n, 129 Mich App 419, 432; 342 NW2d 573 (1983). “Actual malice means publication with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard of truth or falsity.” Id.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
The Court first heard arguments on several issues, included in these issues was that the Plaintiff was a limited public figure. These first Motions for Summary Dispsoition were denied and no mention of Limited Public Figure.
Now, the Judge Grants Summary Disposition and list the Plaintiff as a Limited Public Figure. No new evidence was submitted regarding the Plaintiff being a limted public figure!
Question - Can the Court do this?
ARGUMENT #1 – The Court ERRED in ruling on a question of fact. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff was a Limited Public Figure, something that should have been determined by a Jury.
Court Transcript
THE COURT: Thank you.
He did become somewhat of a limited public figure by his own doing in taking the deer around and displaying it and generated quite a bit of interest in the local community, so he did place himself in the spotlight or limelight. By doing that he was a limited public figure to that degree.
ARGUMENT
On April 3, 2006, Defendants filed a motion for summary disposition based on MCR 2.116(C) (6), (8) and (10). Defendants xxx each filed a “concurrence” with the xxx motion.
7. That since December 19. 2004 the Plaintiff has discussed the deer he took on December 19, 2004:
a. once on the radio;
b. once on television;
c. twice in magazines;
d. six times in newspapers;
e. three times where he appeared at venues for purposes of discussing his successful hunt;
f. and three times at venues where he appeared for purposes of having his picture taken with the eight point buck. (ref: Response to Interr. #3)
On April 24, 2006, the Court heard oral arguments on the xxx motion and took the motion under advisement.
On May 31, 2006, the Court issued its written opinion and an order denying Defendants xxx Motion for Summary Disposition stating:
OPINION AND ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants', xxx, motion for summary disposition is hereby denied.
On April 13, 2005, Defendant xxx filed his own motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C) (8) and (10). Defendants xxx each filed a concurrence with the xxx motion.
7. That since December 19, 2004, Plaintiff has made himself a public figure by involving himself in numerous discussions regarding the eight point white buck and in numerous forums including but not limited to:
a. once on the radio;
b. one on television;
C. twice in magazines;
d. six times in newspapers;
e. three times physically appearing at venues to discuss "his successful hunt"; and
f. three times at venues where he appeared for purposes of having his picture taken with the eight point white buck.
On May 22, 2006, the Court heard oral arguments on the xxx motion and took the motion under advisement.
On June 1, 2006, the Court issued its written opinion and an order denying Defendant xxx Motion for Summary Disposition stating:
OPINION AND ORDER
In viewing this matter in light most favor-able to the non moving party, this Court would find that a tier of fact could conclude that the xxx letter accuses the Plaintiff of either shooting an albino deer or attempting to shoot an albino deer both of which are criminal acts in Michigan and could create a basis for recovery under MCL 600.2911
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant xxx motion for Summary disposition is hereby denied.
On September 14 , 2006, Defendant xxx filed a Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10) which echoed the exact same issues and facts that the Court denied in its June 1, 2006 Order.
8. That since December 19, 2004, Plaintiff has made himself a public figure by involving himself in numerous discussions regarding the eight point white buck and in numerous forums including but not limited to:
a. once on the radio;
b. one on television;
c. twice in magazines:
d. six times in newspapers;
e. three times physically appearing at venues to discuss" his successful
hunt"; and
f. three times at venues where he appeared for purposes of having his picture
taken with the eight point white buck.
On October 17, 2006 Plaintiff did respond to this disputed question of fact in his Answer to Defendant xxx Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition by stating the following:
8. Regarding the term “public figure” as used in libel law, Plaintiff disagrees that he “made himself a public figure” by taking the deer to various forums. The term “public figure” applies to an elected official, or someone who interjects himself into a public controversy, usually political. In this case the Plaintiff was a private citizen acting in a private capacity, not intending to become a part of a political controversy. The issue raised by the Defendant was not that the deer was a white deer, but that the deer was a “neighborhood pet albino deer,” and Defendant clearly asserted that the Plaintiff shot that specific “neighborhood pet,” an assertion that is countered by many facts in this case. The issue raised by the Defendant is not just that the deer was an albino, but that it was the very deer he had been feeding for a number of years.
Defendant xxx argued, several months ago, that Plaintiff was a private figure, which is true. He apparently has switched his position to conform to that of other Defendants who claim that Plaintiff is a public figure. That in itself is a genuine issue of material fact that is in dispute. Defendant xxx reasoning for Plaintiff’s claim to be a private figure is wrong, however, because Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges malice by the Defendants, which happens to be the standard applicable to a public figure. Plaintiff’s purpose is to establish that he qualifies for exemplary damages because of the intentional acts of the Defendant, which does involve a higher burden of proof.
On October 16, 2006, Defendants xxx followed Defendant xxx lead by filing their “Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition” under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10) which echoed the same exact issues and facts that the Court denied in its May 31, 2006 Order.
In their Motion for Summary Disposition Defendants argued the identical following question of fact, under: Brief Statement of Uncontested Facts #4
4. That since December 19, 2004. Plaintiff has made himself a public figure by involving himself in numerous discussions regarding the eight point white buck and Defendant’s letters in numerous public forums including but not limited to:
a. once on the radio;
b. one on television;
c. twice in magazines:
d. six times in newspapers;
e. three times physically appearing at venues to discuss" his successful hunt"; and
f. three times at venues where he appeared for purposes of having his picture taken with the eight point white buck.
These are the exact arguments of material fact that are in dispute and were denied in the Judges Orders on May 31, 2006 and June 1, 2006, then granted in the Judges Order signed on December 1, 2006. Notice their was no new items discovered during discovery.
The Michigan Court of Appeals ERRED in doing the same.
Further, we are satisfied that plaintiff made himself a “limited public figure” for purposes of this particular case. It is undisputed that plaintiff sought out significant media attention. He appeared with his deer at various public venues, in several newspaper and magazine articles, and in at least one television report. Plaintiff, as a limited public figure, was “prohibited from collecting damages from defendants for libel unless [he could] show . . . that defendants made the complained of publication
