Comins v. VanVoorhis [1]

Christopher  Comins, an Orange County businessman, filed a defamation lawsuit [2] against Matthew Frederick VanVoorhis, who publishes a wordpress blog called Public Intellectual [3].  Comins objects to two of VanVoorhis' blog posts from June [4] and August [5]2008, which reported and followed up on an incident that occurred in May, in which Comins shot two husky dogs believing they were wolves intimidating a group of cattle grazing on land being developed by one of his business partners. According to the Orlando Sentinel [6], both dogs survived, one with four gunshot wounds and the other with three.

VanVoorhis blogged about the incident after video footage [7] captured by Irish tourists who witnessed the event appeared on YouTube. The six-minute video shows Comins shoot the dogs while a sizeable number of onlookers express increasing amounts of outrage.  It also shows the dog's owner, Chris Butler, run onto the scene in a frantic effort to save the dogs.  After the video appeared, an Internet backlash of sorts erupted on animal-rights websites and forums, according to the Sentinel [8]. 

VanVoorhis' first post, called "Christopher Comins: Barbarian Hillbilly Dog-Assassin (w/Friends in High Places) [4], took a highly critical stance on Comins' conduct and used an almost novelistic approach to recreating the timeline of events and the participant's emotions.  VanVoorhis embedded the tourist video in the post.

Comins' complaint alleges that this post "misrepresents the timeline, sequence and facts of this incident to cast Plaintiff in a false and negative light."  It also alleges the post "falsely claims . . . that Plaintiff continued shooting the dogs after their owner entered the pasture and notified Plaintiff that these were his pets."  The complaint includes claims for defamation and tortious interference with a business relationship. 

VanVoorhis'  second post [5] reported more matter-of-factly about the possibility of a follow-up investigation by authorities and, while mentioned in the complaint, doesn't appear to be targeted by the lawsuit.

Update:

9/20/2010 - Comins filed an amended complaint.

11/3/2010 - Comins filed a second amended complaint.

3/1/2011 -  VanVoorhis moved for summary judgment [9], arguing that Comins had failed to state a claim by not giving VanVoorhis pre-suit notice of the defamation claim as required by Florida Statutes § 770.01 [10].  VanVoorhis also argued VanVoorhis's comments were statements of opinion about a public figure without actual malice, thereby barring Comins' defamation claim.  And VanVoorhis argued that his comments do not show the intentional and unjustified conduct Comins needed to support a claim of tortious interference with business relationships.

6/29/2011 - The Ninth Judicial Circuit granted VanVoorhis's motion [11] for summary judgment,  finding that VanVoorhis's blog is a "medium" for purposes of Florida's defamation notice law, and that Comins had failed to give VanVoorhis the requisite pre-suit notice.

 8/18/2011 - Comins filed a Notice of Appeal to the Florida District Court of Appeal for the Fifth District. In his subsequent appellant brief [12], Comins argued that VanVoorhis is a non-media defendant for purposes of Florida's defamation notice law, and thus should not qualify for such a notice requirement. Comins further argued that even if VanVoorhis did qualify for pre-suit notice, he waived such benefit by remaining anonymous and evading initial contact.

11/14/2012 - VanVoorhis filed an answer brief and cross-appeal brief [13]. In his brief, VanVoorhis argues that the court correctly interpreted the defamation notice law, and argued that the claim against VanVoorhis must fail because the statements are opinion, Comins cannot prove actual malice, and Comins cannot prove any damages stemming from VanVoorhis's statements. VanVoorhis further argued that the tortious interference claim was a hidden defamation claim and should fail for the same reasons that the defamation claim should fail.