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. When Ms. Rumore discovered the sale and compared the $45,000.00 she received for her half interest in the community, which included the Del Frisco's Steakhouse businesses, with the $22.7 million dollar sale price, allegedly received by Mr. Wamstad from Lone Star, she filed suit alleging fraud. All Defendants sought summary judgment, which the trial court denied, and all Defendants appealed. He stated that he had no knowledge that the Article or any statements in it were false at the time the Article was published, and at no time did he entertain any doubts as to the truth of the statements made in the Article. 1323); El Paso Times, Inc. v. Trexler, 447 S.W.2d 403, 405-06 (Tex.1969) (proof of utter failure to investigate amounted to no evidence of actual malice). 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. We conclude that Wamstad's summary judgment evidence, in essence, merely asserts falsity of the Individual Defendants' Statements but does not otherwise raise specific, affirmative proof to controvert the Individual Defendants' affidavits negating actual malice. In actual-malice cases, such affidavits must establish the defendant's belief in the challenged statements' truth and provide a plausible basis for this belief. Three employees of the Observer-reporter Mark Stuertz, managing editor Patrick Williams, and editor Julie Lyons-each submitted an affidavit denying actual malice. 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. Independent evidence is required: Id. "General-purpose" public figures are those individuals who have achieved such pervasive fame or notoriety that they become public figures for all purposes and in all contexts. 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). Id., (citing Trotter v. Jack Anderson Enters., Inc., 818 F.2d 431, 433 (5th Cir. News v. Dracos, 922 S.W.2d 242, 255 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no writ) (actual malice cannot be inferred from falsity of the challenged statement alone); Fort Worth Star-Telegram v. Street, 61 S.W.3d 704, 713-14 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. Having invited public rebuttal concerning his persona, Wamstad took on the status of a limited public figure with respect to his behavior in business and family matters. Civ. New York Times Co. v. Connor, 365 F.2d 567, 576 (5th Cir. The Casso court went on to explain that the plaintiff must offer, at trial, clear and convincing affirmative proof of actual malice. 683 S.W.2d 369, 374-75 (Tex. Rumore filed suit following the sale, claiming she was duped out of her share of the proceeds generated by the restaurant they founded and then developed in New Orleans in the early 1980s. 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. 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. Subsequently, in 1995, the press reported that Wamstad dropped the libel suit to facilitate his $23 million sale of Del Frisco's to a national chain. 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. Wamstad is a classic case of a shrewd business guy from out of town who got under the skin of corrupt local public servants. He stated that "the final result was truthful, accurate, and a fair representation of the reporter's research." See Casso, 776 S.W.2d at 558 (citing New York Times, defining actual malice in public-figure case as term of art, different from the common-law definition of malice). Huckabee, 19 S.W.3d at 427. Wamstad's big beef If you think III Forks owner Dale Wamstad--and his 257-year-old alter ego, Capt. On the other hand, if the non-movant must, in all likelihood, come forth with independent evidence to prevail, then summary judgment may well be proper in the absence of such controverting proof. They have also lived in Richardson, TX and Dallas, TX. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 572-73. 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. 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. 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. Ms. The two were inevitably linked, particularly because reports by others contrasted significantly with the family-man persona Wamstad persistently projected in his advertising. Wamstad had not reacted to the advertisement before. Williams responded, "Beyond that point, I can't specifically recall anything." WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex.1998). A failure to investigate fully is not evidence of actual malice; a purposeful avoidance of the truth is. Thereafter, Wamstad married again, and began operating Del Frisco's restaurants in Dallas. We reject this argument, just as the court in Huckabee did. The restaurant is the latest culinary project by restaurateur Dale Wamstad. In sum, the media coverage of Wamstad over the past 15-plus years has been substantial and considerably focused on Wamstad's personality, with Wamstad himself participating in the media discussion. Rooster Town is the latest culinary project by restaurateur Dale Wamstad, owner of the adjacent Texas chophouse and Two For the Money BBQ. He discussed the extensive interviews, media reports, court documents and transcripts Stuertz used and the level of corroboration among the sources. 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. and help keep the future of the Observer, Use of this website constitutes acceptance of our, Dallas Observer's The Morning After Brunch. The judge ruled that she had acted in self-defense. When Piper moved his restaurant, Wamstad reopened a Del Frisco's in the original location. In Wilson, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's determination that the libel plaintiff adduced "insufficient evidence of malice." The article recounted stories of Wamstad's physical and emotional abuse of family members and his numerous disputes with business partners. Civ. 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. Tex. 1979). Turner v. KTRK Television, Inc., 38 S.W.3d 103, 120 (Tex. 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." 2003). 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). Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex.1985). The lawsuit was eventually settled. Labour's 1.5m cash injection from Just Stop Oil supporter and eco The Dallas Times Herald published two pieces on the dispute, one entitled "Dueling Steak Knives." In its edition dated March 16-22, 2000, the Dallas Observer published an article ("the Article") about Dale Wamstad, entitled, "Family Man," with the caption on the cover stating, "Dallas Restaurateur Dale Wamstad portrays himself as humble entrepreneur and devoted father. A few months after Svalesen resigned from the restaurant in June 1999, Upright slapped him with a lawsuit demanding the return of his shares in the restaurant's parent company, Pescado Inc., because he failed to purchase them with cash. See Howell v. Hecht, 821 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, writ denied) (concluding similar language negated actual malice). However, leave Dee Lincoln and Del Frisco's . & Rem.Code Ann. Rumore filed the suit shortly after Wamstad sold his interest in Del Frisco's restaurants for nearly $23 million. 5251 Spring Valley Rd. (quoting St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968)). TX Court of Appeals Opinions and Cases | FindLaw I probably deserve it However, leave Dee Lincoln and Del Frisco's.. out of it. Wamstad also points to the divorce court's judgment granting Wamstad a separation from Rumore on the grounds of attempted murder. 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. Code Ann. Dale Wamstad's new restaurant Two for the Money BBQ opens in Richardson Emmerdale star Dale Meeks dies age 47 as tributes pour in for actor 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. Id. We conclude that the affidavits contain ample evidence of a plausible basis for the Observer's employees to believe in the truth of the Statements as reported in the Article. Huckabee, 19 S.W.3d at 427. In the mid-1990s, the press began referring to Wamstad as "flamboyant" and "controversial." The Four Sisters were trying to stare down Dale. Imagining that something may be true is not the same as belief. She's a great lady. Id. 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. Co. L.P., 19 S.W.3d 413, 420 (Tex.2000). Accordingly, we reverse and render judgment for all Appellants. Six different former business associates, including Lou Saba and Jack Sands, recount their view of their business dealings with Wamstad and how they came to feel that Wamstad took advantage of them.3 The Article also describes Wamstad's litigation with his long-time rival Ruth Fertel, of Ruth's Chris Steakhouse. . It is not enough for the jury to disbelieve the libel defendant's testimony. Meet the 'Queen of Steaks' who runs one of Frisco's highest grossing Wamstad argues that because the Individual Defendants' credibility is at issue, summary judgment is inappropriate, relying on Casso. The record contains numerous references to Wamstad throughout the 1990s, many appearing in the restaurant critic columns, which make frequent references to Wamstad personally. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Wamstad also points to the divorce court's judgment granting Wamstad a separation from Rumore on the grounds of attempted murder. Rem. I spend Sundays with my family." 1323, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968)). 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. Actual Malice and Burdens of Proof on Summary Judgment. Please try again. 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.
Another Word For Social Committee,
Mobile Homes For Sale In Post Falls, Idaho,
Contact Agent De Joueur Football Belgique,
Adjoining Condos Destin, Fl,
Rick Banner St Paul's School,
Articles D