Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc.

38 Citing briefs

  1. Green v. Cosby

    MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AS TO COUNT III

    Filed February 27, 2015

    Because “the substance, the gist, the sting” of the November 20 Statement is justified, it is substantially true and not actionable as defamation. See Masson, 501 U.S. at 517. B. Plaintiff Traitz Suffered No Incremental Harm Closely related to the substantial truth rule is the doctrine of incremental harm, sometimes categorized as one branch of the “libel-proof plaintiff” doctrine.

  2. Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc. v. Katz et al

    REPLY to opposition to motion re SEALED MOTION

    Filed September 17, 2010

    at 18 (emphasis added).20 There would, of course, be nothing particularly “difficult to follow” about transactions between Mar-Jac and a person or entity that was then included on a U.S. government list of known terrorist sponsors. Moreover, for purposes of a defamation claim such as this, which necessarily focuses on whether an allegedly false assertion would have a “different effect on the mind” of a reasonable viewer than the undisputed truth, Masson¸ 501 U.S. at 517 – as opposed to a criminal prosecution, which focuses on specified unlawful acts undertaken with the requisite criminal intent – it is immaterial whether money was sent to an identified terrorism sponsor before or after its formal designation. See, e.g., Mar-Jac Joint Opp’n at 17-18.

  3. HASSELL v. BIRD

    Appellant’s Request for Judicial Notice

    Filed July 19, 2017

    As an admitted public figure, Cochran must prove, with clear and convincing evidence, that the allegedly defamatory statements — which gaverise to the injunction -— were published with actual malice, meaning “with ‘knowledge that [they were] false or with reckless disre- gard of whether [they were] false or not.’” Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 501 U.S. 496, 510 (1991) (citations omitted); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255-57 (1986). The actual malice standard focuses solely on the defendant’s subjective state of mind “at the time of publication.”

  4. Resolute Forest Products, Inc. et al v. Greenpeace International et al

    MOTION to Strike Pursuant to O.C.G.A. Section 9-11-11.1 and Memorandum in Support

    Filed September 8, 2016

    In other words, “a statement” is not considered false unless it “‘would have a different effect on the mind of the reader from that which the pleaded truth would have produced.’” Masson, 501 U.S. at 517 (citation omitted). “Substantial truth is all that is required.”

  5. Shay v. Walters

    MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings

    Filed July 8, 2011

    A statement is substantially true unless it “‘would have a different effect on the mind of the reader from that which the pleaded truth would have produced.’” Masson, 501 U.S. at 517 (quoting Robert Sack, Libel, Slander, and Related Problems 138 (1980)). Plaintiff concedes that “the statement, ‘. . . Nancy, whom the school kicked out midterm for bad behavior,’” is “arguably true.”

  6. Mosley v. Conte

    MOTION to Strike COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIAS ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE [C.C.P. §425.16] STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

    Filed May 30, 2008

    California law permits the defense of “substantial truth,” and thus a defendant is not liable “‘if the substance of the charge be proved true....’” “Put another way, the statement is not considered false unless it ‘would have a different effect on the mind of the reader from that which the ... truth would have produced.’” Masson, 501 U.S. at 516-517, (1991). As discussed above, the declarations of Conte and Hudson forcefully demonstrate that Mosley was well aware of the fact that he was consuming illegal performance enhancing drugs, thus vitiating Mosley’s claims of defamation.

  7. Lundy v. Selene Finance, LP et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Fed.R.Civ.P. 56]

    Filed March 23, 2017

    The court may not make credibility determinations and inferences drawn from the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249; Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 501 U.S. 496, 520 (1991). IV. ARGUMENT A. PLAINTIFF'S WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE CLAIM FAILS.

  8. Copart, Inc. v. Sparta Consulting, Inc.

    MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT

    Filed January 13, 2017

    The court draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, including questions of Case 2:14-cv-00046-KJM-CKD Document 197 Filed 01/13/17 Page 18 of 26 14 COPART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Case No. 2:14-cv-00046-KJM-CKD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 K A S O W IT Z ,B E N S O N ,T O R R E S & F R IE D M A N L L P 1 0 1 C A L IF O R N IA S T R E E T ,S U IT E 2 3 0 0 S A N F R A N C IS C O ,C A L IF O R N IA 9 41 11 credibility and of the weight that particular evidence is accorded. See, e.g., Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 520 (1991). The court determines whether the non-moving party’s “specific facts,” coupled with disputed background or contextual facts, are such that a reasonable jury might return a verdict for the non-moving party.

  9. Montgomery v. Risen et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed December 14, 2015

    ng e ng .26 e . be e ic is] g er ied f 59 10) to Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 201 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2015 Page 39 of 47 29 Masson, 501 U.S. at 510; Levan, 190 F.3d at 1239. “The standard of actual malice is a daunting one.”

  10. Mansour et al v. Factory Direct of Secaucus, LLC

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition

    Filed February 27, 2015

    Instead, the court must construe the facts and inferences in “a light most favorable” to the non-moving party. Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 521 (1991). If the non-moving party identifies specific facts and Case 2:13-cv-02443-SDW-SCM Document 38 Filed 02/27/15 Page 21 of 40 PageID: 534 16 affirmative evidence that contradict those offered by the moving party, summary judgment must be denied.