Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. v. Jones
538 S.W.3d 781 (Tex. App.—Austin 2017), aff'd, 611 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2020)
A tabloid story about a murder-for-hire plot, and an IIED claim swallowed by defamation
- In one lineEn una línea
- An IIED claim based on a published story fails as a gap-filler because the gravamen is defamation; the defamation claim itself survived, including under the Defamation Mitigation Act.Un reclamo de IIED basado en una publicación falla como gap-filler porque el fondo es difamación; el reclamo de difamación sí sobrevivió, incluso bajo la Defamation Mitigation Act.
- RuleRegla
- Where the plaintiff's injury flows from a publication and defamation law provides the remedy, IIED cannot be pleaded alongside it as a gap-filler, and the anti-SLAPP statute requires dismissal of the IIED claim; the Supreme Court of Texas separately held that a lawyer's prompt press release demanding correction can satisfy the Defamation Mitigation Act's request requirement.
- Why this case is herePor qué está aquí este caso
- On the professor's list because it applies the gap-filler rule to a media case: when the gravamen of the complaint is a false publication, defamation is the remedy and IIED is unavailable, which is the threshold question of the memo. Also the model for a citation with subsequent history.
- Procedural posturePostura procesal
- Media defendants moved to dismiss a former professional football player's claims under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (the anti-SLAPP statute). The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals let the defamation and conspiracy claims proceed but dismissed the IIED, malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims; the Supreme Court of Texas affirmed in 2020 on the defamation issues, addressing the Defamation Mitigation Act.
Facts
An online tabloid published a story reporting that a former Dallas Cowboys player had been accused of trying to hire someone to kill a relative. The player’s lawyer issued a press release the same day demanding a retraction; the outlet updated the story. The player sued the outlet, its corporate parents and the reporter for defamation, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution and abuse of process.
Procedural posture
The defendants moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, which requires the plaintiff to show a prima facie case for each element by clear and specific evidence once the statute applies. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed as to defamation and conspiracy and reversed as to IIED, malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The Supreme Court of Texas granted review on the defamation issues and affirmed in May 2020.
Issue
For this course: whether an IIED claim can proceed when the alleged injury comes from a published story that is also the basis of a defamation claim.
Holding
No. IIED is a gap-filler; the gravamen was defamation, so the IIED claim was dismissed under the anti-SLAPP statute. (Verify the court’s exact language and the pincite in the 2017 opinion.)
Reasoning
The court applied Zeltwanger’s rule that IIED exists only where no other theory of recovery addresses the harm, and treated the publication-based injury as defamation territory, the same move as Draker for a fake online profile.
Rule (own words)
A story that hurts your reputation is a defamation case. You do not get a second tort for the distress the story caused.
Likely follow-upsRepreguntas probables
Why did the IIED claim fail while the defamation claim survived?
What did the Supreme Court of Texas decide in 2020?
How do you cite it in the memo?
Say the answer out loud before revealing each part. Rate yourself honestly; the case comes back sooner when you miss.Di la respuesta en voz alta antes de revelar cada parte. Califícate con honestidad; el caso vuelve antes si fallas.
Panic kit: “Could you repeat the question, please?” · “Let me make sure I have the facts right: …” · “I'm not certain, but I'd argue … because …”Kit de pánico: “Could you repeat the question, please?” · “Let me make sure I have the facts right: …” · “I'm not certain, but I'd argue … because …”