Appeals Court Declines to Make New Venue Rules for Internet Defamation Cases
Five-decade-old precedent remains just as relevant to determining the venue of a lawsuit alleging internet defamation as it was when print still ruled the media, the Pennsylvania Superior Court said.
May 30, 2019 at 02:57 PM
5 minute read
Five-decade-old precedent remains just as relevant to determining the venue of a lawsuit alleging internet defamation as it was when print still ruled the media, the Pennsylvania Superior Court said.
In Fox v. Smith, the intermediate appellate court declined Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Arnold New's invitation to reconsider the venue rules for defamation claims in light of the technological advances that have occurred since 1967. That's the year the state Supreme Court ruled in Gaetano v. Sharon Herald that, for the purposes of determining where a defamation action should proceed, “publication” occurs in the county where the statement is read and understood to be defamatory.
In Fox, plaintiff Joy Michelle Fox had been the Democratic candidate running against Stacey Smith, who had been on the Republican ticket in the 2017 mayoral campaign for Chester Heights, which is in Delaware County, about 20 miles outside of Philadelphia.
Smith ended up beating Fox in the general election. However, according to the allegations, during the campaign, Smith and several other defendants created a website and a campaign flyer that defamed Fox by saying she faced criminal charges for passing worthless checks. Fox contended that the defendants “cherry-picked” information from three background search websites that had given results for “Joyce Watkins,” who had been charged for passing bad checks in North Carolina. However, according to Fox's allegations, the information described the wrong person. Although Fox's maiden name is Watkins, her first name is not Joyce, but Joy.
Fox sued in February in Philadelphia, contending that the allegedly defamatory information online was accessible to people in Philadelphia, including a friend of Fox's.
The defendants filed preliminary objections, arguing that Philadelphia was not the proper venue. Smith contended that they did not aim the online information at Philadelphians, but rather at Delaware County residents, and that the purpose of a defamation action is to restore a person's name in the community where they live. The defendants further contended that following Fox's logic would mean venue would be proper in any of the state's 67 counties, since a friend or relative could access the information from anywhere in the state.
New sided with Fox, citing Gaetano, but stressed that his task as a judge is to only apply the law, rather than “make new law,” and urged the higher courts in Pennsylvania to reevaluate that precedent, which he said “lags” behind the times.
But in a published May 23 opinion, a three-judge panel of the Superior Court affirmed New's ruling, while acknowledging that the issue of whether Gaetano applies to internet defamation claims is one of first impression.
“In the absence of Pennsylvania law regarding the precise issue at hand, the federal courts' approach to venue is instructive,” Judge Deborah Kunselman wrote for the panel. “Although several federal courts have noted the difficulty in formulating a workable venue rule for internet defamation claims, they tend to support Fox's position that Philadelphia County is a proper forum.”
Kunselman, joined by Judge Mary Murray and Senior Judge Dan Pellegrini, pointed to rulings from the Middle District of Florida and the District of Maryland that held that venue in internet defamation cases is proper wherever the plaintiff suffered reputational harm.
“While couched in slightly different language, the above federal court have adopted a venue rule for internet defamation that mirrors the principles of Gaetano,” Kunselman said. “We follow the lead of those authorities in holding that a plaintiff may file a defamation action in any county where an internet posting causes the requisite harm to the plaintiff's reputation. As outlined in Gaetano, this harm occurs when an internet communication is read by a third party who the plaintiff knows personally and who understands the communication to be harmful to the plaintiff's reputation. Since the county in which that third party lives is a place of publication, it is a place where the plaintiff may file suit.”
Murray did, however, pen a separate concurring opinion requesting that the “Supreme Court, its rules committees, and our legislature provide further guidance in the evolving area of electronic communications.”
“As technology continues to grow and its application implicates various elements of both criminal and civil law, this court will continue to be presented with novel appeals involving the use of electronic communication, the majority of which will be decided by precedent that never contemplated electronic publication,” Murray said.
Counsel for Fox, Peter Bryant of Bochetto & Lentz in Philadelphia, said in a statement, “We were obviously pleased with the ruling. The longstanding concept that defamation happens where the offending words are read or learned of is a concept that still makes sense even in the digital era.”
Counsel for Smith, Daniel Rucket of Rawle & Henderson in Philadelphia, did not respond to a request for comment, nor did Mary Elizabeth Naughton Beck of Swartz Campbell in Philadelphia, who represented appellant Theresa Agostinelli.
(Copies of the 18-page opinion in Fox v. Smith, PICS No. 19-0661, are available at http://at.law.com/PICS.)
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
© 2024 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 AllSettlement With Kleinbard in Diversity Contracting Tiff Allows Pa. Lawyer to Avoid Sanctions
3 minute readJudge Denies DA Krasner's Bid to Stop Musk PAC's Million-Dollar Voter Giveaway
3 minute readLive Nation, Stage Crew Reach $18M Settlement for Forklift Accident After Concert at Phillies' Stadium
5 minute readVolunteering for Voter Protection Efforts, Pa. Firms Brace for Contentious Election
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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