Lawyer Drops $100 Million Lawsuit Against Online Critic Who Called Him 'Nazi'
After the plaintiff and defendant exchanged several profanity-laced emails, a Denton County lawyer has decided to dismiss his $100 million defamation suit against an online critic.
December 04, 2018 at 04:40 PM
4 minute read
After the plaintiff and defendant exchanged several profanity-laced emails, a Denton County lawyer has decided to dismiss his $100 million defamation suit against an online critic who allegedly called him a “Nazi” and “white supremacist” in internet postings and caused the attorney to lose his job at a law firm.
Attorney Jason Van Dyke filed the defamation case against Thomas Retzlaff in a state district court earlier this year. But Retzlaff later removed the suit to federal court and moved to dismiss it under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, an anti-SLAPP law passed by the Texas Legislature in 2011 that allows judges to quickly dismiss cases that infringe on free-speech rights, and forces a plaintiff to pay the defendant's court costs.
In July, U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant of Sherman denied Retzlaff's motion to dismiss, ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has yet to address whether the TCPA applies in federal court. Retzlaff appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit, an appeal that caught the attention of 40 media organizations, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, who filed an amicus brief with the Fifth Circuit urging it to allow civil litigants to use Texas' anti-SLAPP statute to protect themselves against defamation claims filed in federal courts as well.
Retzlaff and Van Dyke both exchanged bitter emails over the past few days—messages on which media members, including Texas Lawyer, were copied—prompting Van Dyke to declare in a Dec. 2 message: “He has cost me damn near two full years of my life, and I am not going to spend another minute of my time on him. The FBI, the courts, and the State Bar of Texas can do what they need to do because, frankly, I do not give a single solitary f—,” Van Dyke wrote. “I'm out, and as far as I am concerned, Thomas Retzlaff no longer exists.”
Retzlaff responded to Van Dyke's email, writing, “My position is this: Van Dyke can go f— himself. … I ain't dismissing shit. If he wants to quit, fine by me. I'm winning, so f— him.”
On Dec. 3, Van Dyke filed a motion for court-ordered dismissal of his case, noting: “Plaintiff wishes to dismiss this lawsuit because he is of the opinion that, short of locking defendant in a prison cell for the rest of his natural life, there is nothing that this or any other court can do that will stop defendant from continuing to harass plaintiff.
“There is no resolution of this case that will stop defendant's behavior. Defendant has already placed plaintiff in dire financial straits and, simply put, plaintiff lacks the time and resources to continue litigating against a lunatic,” Van Dyke wrote in the motion.
Van Dyke also noted in the motion that he had no opinion as to whether the lawsuit should be dismissed with or without prejudice.
Jeffrey Dorrell, a Houston attorney who represents Retzlaff in the case, said he is not convinced the lawsuit is finished until Mazzant rules on Van Dyke's motion.
“I guess we're going to have to wait and see what actually happens,'' Dorrell said of Van Dyke's motion. “There's no question he's filed it. But he's filed motions before and withdrew them before the court rules on them. And until the court rules on it, I don't know where we are.”
Dorrell also noted that even though Van Dyke has filed the motion to drop the lawsuit, that action alone will not moot Retzlaff's appeal before the Fifth Circuit.
“That by itself … does not moot the appeal because Retzlaff's anti-SLAPP motion survives the dismissal. Retzlaff on his own would have to drop the anti-SLAPP motion, and that would moot the appeal,” Dorrell noted.
Reached by email, Van Dyke said he agrees with Dorrell that his dropping the lawsuit does not moot the appeal currently pending before the Fifth Circuit.
“If the Fifth Circuit answers the question in his favor, Retzlaff may be able to seek sanctions. I am not worried about that,” Van Dyke wrote. “If the appeal is decided in my favor, the case is possibly over. If the appeal is decided in his favor and the federal court awards sanctions, I will file for bankruptcy.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHouston Mass Tort Firm Seeks Liquidation, Owing Over $200M To Lit Funders
4 minute readNo Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Midsize Firm Bressler Amery Absorbs Austin Boutique, Gaining Four Lawyers
- 2Bill Would Allow Californians to Sue Big Oil for Climate-Linked Wildfires, Floods
- 3LinkedIn Suit Says Millions of Profiles Scraped by Singapore Firm’s Fake Accounts
- 4Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Lawsuit Over FBI Raid at Wrong House
- 5What It Takes to Connect With Millennial Jurors
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250