Mosesian v. McClatchy Newspapers

4 Citing briefs

  1. RAND RESOURCES v. CITY OF CARSON

    Amicus Curiae Brief of California Newspaper Publishers Association; Californians Aware; The Center for Investigative Reporting; First Amendment Coalition; The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; A&E Television Networks, LLC; Buzzfeed, Inc.; Cable News Network, Inc.; CBS Corporation; Dow Jones and Company; First Look Media Works, Inc.; The Hearst Corporation; NBCUniversal Media, LLC; The New York Times Company; and The Motion Picture Association of America;

    Filed February 28, 2017

    Moreover, the Weinberg court drew manyofits observations from inapposite cases that had applied a different, far narrower, standard for determining whethera plaintiff should be deemed to be a “public figure” for purposes of defamation law. See Gertz v. Robert Welch, 418 U.S. 323, 27 346-48 (1974) (discussing the difference between the “public figure” and “public interest” analyses); Mosesian v. McClatchy Newspapers, 233 Cal. App. 3d 1685, 1696 (1991) (same; explaining that the “public figure” standard focuses on “the individual plaintiff's identity and status — 1.e., whetherthe plaintiff was a public official/figure or a private individual,” as opposed to whether the defendant’s speech “addressedissues of general or public interest”). . Havingstarted from the incorrect premise that “public figure” cases provide guiding principles for evaluating speech involving matters of “public interest,” the Weinberg court concluded that “the assertion of a broad and amorphouspublic interest is not sufficient.” Weinberg, 110 Cal. App.4th at 1132.

  2. Montgomery v. Risen et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed December 14, 2015

    Montgomery cannot continue the same course of conduct that invited intense scrutiny and expect a different outcome. Thus, he is like the government contractor in CACI that “became a public figure because,” when the U.S. military “engaged [the contractor] to provide civilian interrogators at Abu Ghraib,” it “surely knew 25 See also Mosesian v. McClatchy Newspapers, 285 Cal. Rptr. 430, 439 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (president of company who was subject to media attention in public debate about award of a public contract to company to put on horse-racing event a limited-purpose public figure); Gleichenhaus v. Carlyle, 591 P.2d 635, 641 (Kan. Ct. App.) (contributor to political campaign who later obtained government contract was a limited-purpose public figure), aff’d in relevant part, 597 P.2d 611, 612-13 (Kan. 1979). Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 201 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2015 Page 38 of 47 when it a climate o fronton o profile in revenue b with gov contractin into 2014 whistlebl In his allege defamati regarding A Gertz, 41 must pro 26 Even i dismissed plaintiffs standard that of ne states ma Montgom and recor on officia reputable negligenc periodica law when (D.C. Cir (dismissi allege su ccepted the f media crit wners becam dustry in wh ecause of c ernment age g frauds.

  3. Montgomery v. Risen et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 44 Amended Complaint , MOTION to Change Venue

    Filed May 15, 2015

    25. 46 See also McDowell v. Paiewonsky, 769 F.2d 942, 947-51 (3d Cir. 1985) (holding that architect was limited-purpose public figure because he accepted government contracts and was subject to previous media scrutiny about his work on public projects); Mosesian v. McClatchy Newspapers, 285 Cal. Rptr. 430, 439 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (president of company who was subject to media attention in public debate about award of a public contract to company to put on horse-racing event a limited-purpose public figure); Gleichenhaus v. Carlyle, 591 P.2d 635, 641 (Kan. Ct. App.) (contributor to political campaign who later obtained government contract was a limited- purpose public figure), aff’d in relevant part, 597 P.2d 611, 612-13 (Kan. 1979). Cf. Silvester v. ABC, 839 F.2d 1491, 1495-97 (11th Cir. 1988) (finding jai alai fronton owners public figures by “entering a strictly regulated, high-profile industry in which there were few major participants” and “[t]he potential loss of tax revenue because of corruption” was public controversy).

  4. Montgomery v. Risen et al

    MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint Under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Statute

    Filed April 9, 2015

    the U.S. Attorney’s office, and the D.C. Police Department investigat[ion]”); Logan v. District of Columbia, 447 F. Supp. 1328, 1331 (D.D.C. 1978) (holding plaintiff was a limited purpose public figure because he was arrested in connection with a large undercover operation, accused of serious crimes, and voluntarily injected himself into the operation by telling an undercover agent he had committed murder while trying to obtain a position as a hit man); Brueggenmeyer v. ABC, 684 F. Supp. 452, 458 (N.D. Tex. 1988) (finding plaintiff was a limited purpose public figure because “the course of conduct in which [plaintiff] engaged generated consumer complaints, government legal actions, BBB investigations, and media attention”). 12 See also McDowell v. Paiewonsky, 769 F.2d 942, 947-51 (3d Cir. 1985) (holding that architect was a limited-purpose public figure because he accepted government contracts and was subject to previous media scrutiny about his work on public projects); Mosesian v. McClatchy Newspapers, 285 Cal. Rptr. 430, 439 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (president of company who was subject to media attention in public debate about award of a public contract to company to put on horse-racing event a limited-purpose public figure); Gleichenhaus v. Carlyle, 591 P.2d 635, 641 (Kan. Ct. App.) (contributor to political campaign who later obtained government contract was a limited-purpose public figure), aff’d in relevant part, 597 P.2d 611, 612-13 (Kan. 1979). Cf. Silvester v. ABC, 839 F.2d 1491, 1495-97 (11th Cir. 1988) (finding jai alai fronton owners public figures by “entering a strictly regulated, high-profile industry in which there were few major participants” and “[t]he potential loss of tax revenue because of corruption” evidenced a public controversy).