Wamstad himself perpetuated the public nature of the debate over his contentious relationships through his personal self-promotion in his advertising and his other interactions with the press-with all their attendant ramifications for the opinion-forming, consuming public. Stuertz states in his affidavit that he had arranged an interview with Wamstad, but Wamstad later canceled it on advice of his attorney. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 573 (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 283, 84 S.Ct. The Texas Supreme Court has recently addressed the issue of what type of evidence is probative of actual malice in a case involving media defendants. Tex. At that time, Wamstad . Even after Rumore was acquitted based on self-defense, the New Orleans press continued to cover the couple's subsequent suits against each other, including Wamstad's suit in 1997 against Rumore for damages from shooting him and Rumore's subsequent countersuit for $5 million. See Casso, 776 S.W.2d at 558 (citing New York Times, defining actual malice in public-figure case as term of art, different from the common-law definition of malice). Appeal from the 68th District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 1323, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968)). We conclude that evidence is merely cumulative of Wamstad's testimony asserting Rumore's allegations are false. During the Top-Ten List litigation, Wamstad referred in radio advertisements as having been accused by a New York public relations person (whom he had named as a defendant) as being diabolically clever and successful.. Once the defendant has produced evidence negating actual malice as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to present controverting proof raising a genuine issue of material fact. Id. We conclude that Wamstad is a limited public figure, that all Defendant-Appellants conclusively negated the element of actual malice, which Wamstad did not successfully controvert, thus entitling them to summary judgment as a matter of law. The family he abandoned in New Orleans has a bone to pick with that. The Article is largely a recounting of various interactions with Wamstad as told by his ex-wife, his first-born son Roy, and some of Wamstad's former business associates. 1980) (intensive advertising and continuing access to media made libel plaintiff a limited public figure). Id. See Casso, 776 S.W.2d at 558 (citing New York Times, defining actual malice in public-figure case as term of art, different from the common-law definition of malice). Once the defendant establishes its right to summary judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact, thereby precluding summary judgment. 973 F.2d 1263, 1270-71 (5th Cir.1992). All rights reserved. Patrick Williams stated the following in his affidavit: He had editorial responsibility for Stuertz's article, and he found Stuertz a most accurate reporter. For example, at the time of the dispute with Piper, the Dallas press reported that Wamstad ran an advertisement stating, I've done some stupid things in my life, but selling my steakhouse to my attorney has to top the list and another one in which he accused Piper of running a clone restaurant. at 558-59. r. Civ. Turner, 38 S.W.3d at 120. "Actual malice is a term of art, focusing on the defamation defendant's attitude toward the truth of what it reported." The feud reportedly began in 1981 when Wamstad claimed Fertel's son had slipped her recipes to him. Accordingly, this is not a case where a defamation plaintiff was thrust into the public eye and involuntarily remained there. Labour has taken 1.5million from a Just Stop Oil-backing green energy boss, it emerged yesterday. One article in the New Orleans Times-Picayune, entitled Wounded husband called a raging bull, quoted testimony from the trial of at least three witnesses who described instances they witnessed of Wamstad's physical abuse of Rumore before the shooting. He stated that he had no knowledge that the Article or any statements in it were false at the time the Article was published, and at no time did he entertain any doubts as to the truth of the statements made in the Article. In addition, a reporter may rely on statements by a single source, even though they reflect only one side of the story, without manifesting a reckless disregard for the truth. The Dallas Times Herald published two pieces on the dispute, one entitled Dueling Steak Knives. The Dallas Morning News also covered the story, quoting Piper's and Wamstad's personal comments about each other.6, In 1995, Wamstad's business and personal reputation gained national press attention when he sued Ruth Fertel for defamation over her suggestion that Wamstad was behind the Top-Ten List. The evidence includes an Associated Press article, from November 1994, that chronicled the long-standing personal rivalry between Fertel and Wamstad7 and also reported Fertel's allegation that Wamstad was behind the supposedly independent Top-Ten rating. Grease will kill you.Dale: That's right, Shelby Rose And Dale and Shelby Rose, thanks for helping me out today. Business. The fact that Wamstad denied the abuse and disagreed that his former wife acted in self-defense in shooting him was not evidence that the Observer believed her claims were false and published. We certainly agree that the public debate in this case does not involve matters of great moment in current public life. Accordingly, the affidavits negate actual malice and thus shift the burden to Wamstad to produce controverting evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact concerning actual malice. To establish reckless disregard in this context, a defamation plaintiff must prove that the publisher entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. Id. Affidavits from interested witnesses will negate actual malice as a matter of law only if they are clear, positive, and direct, otherwise credible and free from contradictions and inconsistencies, and could have been readily controverted. Tex. That the Media Defendants published her Statements anyway, his argument goes, is evidence of actual malice. She alleged Wamstad had defrauded her with respect to her earlier property settlement, in 1992, for $45,000. See Casso, 776 S.W.2d at 555. out of it. For example, at the time of the dispute with Piper, the Dallas press reported that Wamstad ran an advertisement stating, "I've done some stupid things in my life, but selling my steakhouse to my attorney has to top the list" and another one in which he accused Piper of running a "clone" restaurant. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. Wamstad opened III Forks in August 1998 and sold it in July 2000. Tex.R.Civ.P. The managing editor had stated to her that virtually all of the information, even that conveyed in interviews with Rumore and Roy Wamstad, was corroborated by other sources or documents. local news and culture. Fertel suggested, in a newsletter to her customers, that the Top-Ten List was a front for Del Frisco's. 4. Through the 1990s, Wamstad advertised in both print media and radio, using an image of himself as a family-man and folksy steakhouse owner to promote his restaurants. Subsequently, in 1995, the press reported that Wamstad dropped the libel suit to facilitate his $23 million sale of Del Frisco's to a national chain. She created the high-end wine, martini and champagne lounge with the Cowboys, Legends Hospitality Management and her brother, Ricky Comardelle. He went on to add that Piper was a piece of snot floating in the ocean.. It is not enough for the jury to disbelieve the libel defendant's testimony. Id. 1979). San Antonio Exp. The marathon game had lasted 9 hours and 23 minutes. Certain Defendant-Appellants filed no-evidence motions for summary judgment under rule 166a(i), which we need not address because we dispose of all issues based on Defendants' traditional motions for summary judgment under rule 166a(c). Wamstad named as defendants parties associated with the media as well as individuals. The articles quoted Piper as saying he got involved with Wamstad in 1985 when Dale's wife shot him and states that Piper showed the reporter the 1986 raging bull article from the Times-Picayune. from 10 a.m.-2 p.m. 972-664-9975 (Texas restaurant) RELATED STORIES A few months after Svalesen resigned from the restaurant in June 1999, Upright slapped him with a lawsuit demanding the return of his shares in the restaurant's parent company, Pescado Inc., because he failed to purchase them with cash. Id. Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 548-49. In 1980, with a newfound drive and outlook on life, he founded Del Frisco's Double Eagle Steakhouse and sold it in 1995 for . In sum, we conclude that Wamstad has failed to raise a fact question on actual malice. Even after Rumore was acquitted based on self-defense, the New Orleans press continued to cover the couple's subsequent suits against each other, including Wamstad's suit in 1997 against Rumore for damages from shooting him and Rumore's subsequent countersuit for $5 million. Neither do the actions of the Media Defendants evince a purposeful avoidance of the truth. See Brueggemeyer, 684 F.Supp. In sum, the media coverage of Wamstad over the past 15-plus years has been substantial and considerably focused on Wamstad's personality, with Wamstad himself participating in the media discussion. Thus, that Wamstad and the divorce judge disagreed with Rumore's allegations is not evidence that the Media Defendants subjectively believed that Rumore's Statements, as they appeared in the Article, were false or that they entertained serious doubts about their truth. Apparently incensed at the steak-house . Wamstad reportedly bristled at that characterization of the truth, claiming, Twenty-three million dollars is truth.. To prevail on summary judgment, a defendant must either disprove at least one element of each of the plaintiff's theories of recovery or plead and conclusively establish each essential element of an affirmative defense, thereby rebutting the plaintiff's cause of action. 2997; Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1297 n. 27 (controversy need not concern political matters). 2997. In its edition dated March 16-22, 2000, the Dallas Observer published an article (the Article) about Dale Wamstad, entitled, Family Man, with the caption on the cover stating, Dallas Restaurateur Dale Wamstad portrays himself as humble entrepreneur and devoted father. Most, if not all of the statements about Wamstad in the Article were corroborated, either by prior sworn court testimony or by other witnesses, and based on the similarity of assertions made by the sources, he did not doubt the credibility of any of his sources, including Rumore and Roy Wamstad. News v. Dracos, 922 S.W.2d 242, 255 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no writ) (actual malice cannot be inferred from falsity of the challenged statement alone); Fort Worth Star-Telegram v. Street, 61 S.W.3d 704, 713-14 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. The article recounted stories of Wamstad's physical and emotional abuse of family members and his numerous disputes with business partners. The email address cannot be subscribed. Wamstad's Dallas Del Frisco's restaurant regularly appeared near the top of the Knife and Fork Club of America's top-ten list of steakhouses in the country (Top-Ten List). (3)the alleged defamation must be germane to the plaintiff's participation in the controversy. Civ. Del Frisco's Double Eagle Steakhouse was founded in 1980 and III Forks in 1998. Moreover, even assuming Wamstad's expert's testimony is admissible, the opinion on the Media Defendant's alleged failure to investigate speaks, rather, to an alleged disregard of a standard of objectivity. at 573 (citations omitted). 496-705-1665. www.roostertownwafflery.com RELATED STORIES Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 548-49. 7. Svalesen claims in court records that he did honor his agreement and was properly issued the shares in lieu of cash through "my previously rendered services which were equal to or in excess of the monetary value assigned to the shares." Concerning the first element, a general concern or interest does not constitute a controversy. Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1297. To prevail on summary judgment, a defendant must either disprove at least one element of each of the plaintiff's theories of recovery or plead and conclusively establish each essential element of an affirmative defense, thereby rebutting the plaintiff's cause of action. Veteran restaurateur Dale Wamstadt plans to open Four Sisters Cafe on April 18.It's his first big new restaurant in years. 73.001 (Vernon 1997).WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex., Full title:NEW TIMES, INC. D/B/A DALLAS OBSERVER; MARK STUERTZ; LENA RUMORE WADDELL, Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas, stating that a reporter may rely on statements by a single source even though they reflect only one side of the story without showing a reckless disregard for the truth. The record refers to Wamstad's involvement in at least ten restaurants since 1977 and contains court documents concerning legal disputes over at least four different restaurants, involving four different former associates. Texas courts have held that falsity alone is not probative of actual malice. Tex. Wamstad argues that at most only personal disputes are involved, that there is no public controversy in the sense that the public is affected by these disputes in any real way. . In actual-malice cases, such affidavits must establish the defendant's belief in the challenged statements' truth and provide a plausible basis for this belief. Id. Wamstad's ex-wife, Lena Rumore, describes alleged incidents of Wamstad's physical abuse of her, her shooting of Wamstad in 1985, and the ensuing trial in which she was acquitted based on self-defense. That Court noted the mere fact that a libel defendant knows that the libel plaintiff denies an allegation is not evidence that the defendant doubted the allegation. The Casso court went on to explain that the plaintiff must offer, at trial, clear and convincing affirmative proof of actual malice. To maintain a defamation cause of action, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant (1) published a statement (2) that was defamatory concerning the plaintiff (3) while acting with either actual malice, if the plaintiff was a public figure, or negligence, if the plaintiff was a private individual, regarding the truth of the statement. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974)). Whether Wamstad's investment pays off remains . The record contains numerous references to Wamstad throughout the 1990s, many appearing in the restaurant critic columns, which make frequent references to Wamstad personally. We conclude that Wamstad's summary judgment evidence, in essence, merely asserts falsity of the Individual Defendants' Statements but does not otherwise raise specific, affirmative proof to controvert the Individual Defendants' affidavits negating actual malice. When Piper moved his restaurant, Wamstad reopened a Del Frisco's in the original location. The Casso court went on to explain that the plaintiff must offer, at trial, clear and convincing affirmative proof of actual malice. NEW TIMES, INC. d/b/a Dallas Observer; Mark Stuertz; Lena Rumore Waddell, Lou Saba; and Jack Sands, Appellants, v. Dale F. WAMSTAD, Appellee. On May 26, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied Wamstad's attempt to derail his ex-wife's damage suit seeking a portion of the $22.7 million doled out when Lone Star Steak & Saloon purchased Del Frisco's in late 1995. Legal Principles Governing Defamation and Public-Figure Status. Huckabee v. Time Warner Enter. This reliance is misplaced. Whether a party is a public figure is a question of constitutional law for courts to decide.