Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
This one's a doozy.
Jane Doe met Sammy Hagar in 1983 when she was working as a Playboy bunny at the Playboy Club in Lansing, Michigan. In 1988, Doe told Hagar she was pregnant and he was the father, which he denied, but signed an agreement with Doe, anyway. The child was born, but died shortly afterward. In a 2011 autobiography, Hagar said that the paternity claim was just an attempt to extort money out of him and he doubts there ever was a baby at all. Doe sued for defamation. The district court granted summary judgment for Hagar. In a ruling today, the Eighth Circuit reversed some of that summary judgment.
I think that about sums it up.
The Eighth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment to Hagar on Doe's first claim, libel per se. "An accusation that a person is a liar" is defamatory as a matter of law in Iowa, where the case was filed. The statements were also published. But the question remained whether the statements were "of and concerning" Doe; she wasn't identified by name in the book.
Nevertheless, Doe's friends and family members - as well as others familiar with the situation -- recognized her as the person Hagar mentioned in the book. In Iowa, evidence extrinsic to the defamatory statements is permitted to "ascertain the subject of the defamatory statements."
Though Hagar insisted that the statements were substantially true, when truth is raised as a defense, then the truth or falsity of the statements raise a factual dispute -- meaning summary judgment wasn't appropriate.
The tort of invasion of privacy requires "publicity" of the claim, meaning the claim is made public, such as through distribution in a communication medium that is likely to reach the public at large. While the concealment of Doe's identity means that the public at large isn't likely to know who she is, the court found "questions of fact exist as to whether the challenged statements were sufficiently publicized."
Yes, contract breach is here, too! The agreement Doe and Hagar signed contained a confidentiality provision. In his book, Hagar mentioned that he paid her money. In fact, he had: the agreement provided that Hagar would pay her $7,000 to support her during the pregnancy, with a paternity test once the child was born. The court found that Hagar's passing reference to paying Doe breached the confidentiality clause of the contract.
I guess Hagar just can't get no satisfaction. Wait -- wrong band.
After winning this appeal, Jane Doe must be at the top of the world. (Yeah, that's the ticket.)
Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.
Sign into your Legal Forms and Services account to manage your estate planning documents.Sign In
Create an account allows to take advantage of these benefits: