Gilding v. Carr [1]

Summary

Threat Type:

Lawsuit

Date:

09/11/2007

Status:

Pending

Location:

Arizona

Verdict or Settlement Amount:

N/A

Legal Claims:

Defamation

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Tortious Interference

John Carr is the former past president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA). Carr operates a blog, The Main Bang, on which he often criticizes the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In two blog posts in July 2007, Carr... read full description

Parties

Party Receiving Legal Threat:

John Carr; National Air Traffic Controllers Association; John Does I-V and Jane Does I-V, ABC Associations I-V

Type of Party:

Individual

Type of Party:

Individual

Organization

Location of Party:

Arizona

Location of Party:

Ohio

Legal Counsel:

Michael W. Pearson, Robert D. Wooten

Legal Counsel:

Kraig J. Marton, David N. Farren

Description

John Carr is the former past president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA). Carr operates a blog, The Main Bang [2], on which he often criticizes the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In two blog posts [3] in July 2007, Carr wrote about an FAA employee who committed suicide and detailed the actions of the employee's supervisor, John Gilding.

On September 11, 2007, Gilding commenced a lawsuit [4] against Carr, claiming that Carr defamed him and placed him in a false light. Gilding further claims that Carr's blog falsely accused Gilding of "lying under oath in an administrative hearing" and "harrassing and intimidating a subordinate CPC to death." The complaint outlines several other statements that plaintiff alleges Carr "falsely and maliciously" made on his blog. The complaint requests relief in the form of general and punitive damages.

On October 31, 2007, Carr filed a motion to dismiss [5] for lack of personal jurisdiction, asserting that Arizona state courts do not have jurisdiction over him because he is a resident of Ohio and has no contacts or business with Arizona. Carr later filed motions for summary judgment based upon defenses of truth, opinion, and absence of actual malice. On April 25, 2008, the court denied [6] Carr's motion to dismiss.

Update:

10/27/08 - Gilding filed a Third Amended Complaint that added NATCA as a defendant.

11/19/08 - The case was removed to the US District Court for the District of Arizona.

11/25/08 - NATCA filed a motion to dismiss. Gilding opposed.

04/07/09 - The court granted [7] Gilding's motion to remand back to state court and denied NATCA's motion to dismiss.

04/20/09 - The court granted [8] Gilding's motion to appoint a Special Master to referee the discovery process.

04/23/09 - NATCA filed a notice of intent to appeal to the Ninth Circuit the decision to remand. Other defendants file similar notices.

04/24/09 - Gilding requested an award of attorney's fees.

05/14/09 - Gilding moved to dismiss [9] NATCA's appeal.

06/02/09 - Guilding moved for a subpoena [10] to be issued to obtain FAA investigation records regarding defendants Bob Marks and Jerry Johnston.

06/05/09 - The court denied Gilding's motion for an award of attorney's fees (originally made 4/24/09 and supplemented 5/21/09).

06/08/09 - NATCA moved to stay proceedings pending its appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

06/11/09 - Gilding submitted a brief opposing [11]NATCA's appeal.

06/12/09 - Guilding opposed [12] NATCA motion to stay.

Details

Web Site(s) Involved:

The Main Bang [17]

The Main Bang: A Fate Worse Than Death [3] (the blog posts in question)

Content Type:

Text

Publication Medium:

Blog

Subject Area:

Defamation
Personal Jurisdiction
Business Torts

Court Information & Documents

Jurisdiction:

Arizona

Source of Law:

Arizona

Court Name:

The Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County; United States District Court for the District of Arizona

Court Type:

Federal

State

Case Number:

CV 2007-016329 (state); 2:08-cv-02137 (federal)

Relevant Documents:

2007-09-11-Gilding Complaint.pdf [18]

2007-10-31-Carr Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.pdf [19]

2007-11-26-Gilding Response to Carr's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.pdf [20]

2008-04-25-Gilding v. Carr Ruling on Motion to Dismiss.pdf [21]

2007-10-31-Carr's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Person Jurisdiction.pdf [22]

2007-11-23-Gilding's Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.pdf [23]

2008-01-11-Carr's Motion for Summary Judgment - Absence of Malice.pdf [24]

2008-01-11-Carr's Motion for Summary Judgment - Opinion.pdf [25]

2008-01-11-Carr's Motion for Summary Judgment - Truth.pdf [26]

2008-01-11-Carr's Renewed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.pdf [27]

2008-02-25-Gilding's Response to Carr's Renewed Motion to Dimsiss.pdf [28]

2008-05-20-Defendant Marks' Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss.PDF [29]

2008-06-18-Marks' Answer to Second Amended Complaint.PDF [30]

2008-10-23-Gilding's Response to Carr's Motion for Summary Judgment - Opinion.pdf [31]

2008-10-23-Gilding's Response to Carr's Motion for Summary Judgment - Truth.pdf [32]

2008-11-19-Gilding v. Carr Notice of Removal.pdf [33]

2008-11-25-NATCA's Motion to Dismiss.pdf [34]

2008-10-27-Gilding's Third Amended Complaint (begins pg 15).pdf [35]

01-07-2009-Gilding's Opposition to NATCA's Motion to Dismiss.pdf [36]

Gilding.ResponsetoMotion.pdf [37]

Gilding.Reply.pdf [38]

2009-04-08-Order Granting Gilding's Motion to Remand and Denying NATCA's Motion to Dismiss.PDF [39]

2009-04-20-Gilding Discovery Master.pdf [40]

2009-06-02-Gilding FAA Subpoena.pdf [41]

2009-06-12-Gilding Opposing stay.pdf [42]

2009-06-11-Gilding Opposing appeal.pdf [43]

2009-05-14-Gilding Motion Opposing appeal.pdf [44]

CMLP Information (Private)

CMLP Notes:

Updated 1/29/09 - VAF

Note: Check the Curry, Pearson, & Wooten link for case updates.

Updated 6/18/09 AVM - added removal information etc.

Comments

Truth [48]

Is this site supposed to represent factual, non-biased information? Because it doesn't. The summary claims that the Defendant accuses the Plaintiff of: "harrassing and intimidating a subordinate CPC to death." Well, yes it does, but that isn't at issue in the lawsuit. The complaint does indeed contain that quote, but if you follow the link provided to the actual text you find that the actual quote is this: "This was a man who lied under oath and manipulated the Training Order in order to harass and intimidate a subordinate woman...some say to death." That's quite different. To summarize the essence of the suit with a quote from the Plaintiff which is not only demonstrably false but proved false by a link on the same page, without also summarizing the defense is blatant bias.

A Summary [49]

Blatant bias... seriously? It's a summary, not the full text.

Threat Type:

Date:

Status:

Location:

Verdict or Settlement Amount:

Legal Claims:

Party Receiving Legal Threat:

Type of Party:

Type of Party:

Location of Party:

Location of Party:

Legal Counsel:

Legal Counsel:

Related Links:

Web Site(s) Involved:

Content Type:

Publication Medium:

Subject Area:

Jurisdiction:

Source of Law:

Court Name:

Court Type:

Case Number:

Relevant Documents:

CMLP Notes:

Comments