Defamation Suit Over Businessman's Wife Calling Prominent Businesswoman "Prostitute" Dismissed

From today’s decision by Judge Charlotte Sweeney in Mai v. Elsaden (D. Colo.):

This case begins with a conversation. Plaintiff Tiffany Mai alleges that on Friday, July 5, 2024, Defendant Laura Elsaden—without provocation—described Ms. Mai as a prostitute to partygoers at a dance. This description, Ms. Mai alleges, is wrong and has caused her approximately $50,000,000 in damages.

The court concluded that Mai was a public figure:

Ms. Mai alleges the following throughout her complaint:

• She is an “award-winning businesswoman and philanthropist who has achieved considerable success as the owner of multiple insurance agencies in Colorado and California and is the founder of several entrepreneurial ventures;”
• She has “prominence in business and social circles;”
• She, along with her husband, run the “prestigious C Lazy U Ranch,” that is “known for its elite membership and guests from around the world,” and the Ranch is “valued at over $7.9 million;”
• Mai maintains the Ranch to “cultivate and maintain business relationships;”
• The Ranch is a “premier, luxury dude ranch for discerning travelers and guests;”
• Guests visit the Ranch “from all over the world, including top businesspeople and people of means from both the United States and abroad.”

These allegations show Ms. Mai is a person who has “assumed a role of especial prominence in the affairs of society.” And not only has Ms. Mai allegedly assumed this prominent role in American society—she has done so globally. These allegations underscore the extent to which Ms. Mai “occup[ies]” a “position[] of such persuasive power and influence” as to be a “public figure for all purposes,” and bely Ms. Mai’s argument that there is only a “small number” of Ranch community members. Particularly where the “elite” guests for the “prestigious” and “luxury” C Lazy U Ranch come from “around the world” and arrive for business purposes, and Ms. Mai operates the Ranch to maintain “business relationships” rather than for purely recreational or personal purposes.

The court also concluded that, given Mai’s public figure status, it didn’t matter under Colorado law whether the allegations were matters of public concern. (The court cited Seible v. Denver Post Corp. (Colo. App. 1989), which states that “publications which concern either a public figure or a matter of public concern are constitutionally protected, and a showing of actual malice is necessary to defeat the protection and make a defamatory publication actionable.”) The court then went on to concluded that Mai hadn’t adequately alleged that Elsaden knew her allegations were false or acted with reckless regard of that (the legal meaning of the confusing phrase “actual malice”):

[A]t most Ms. Mai has advanced conclusory allegations that Ms. Elsaden’s statement was malicious. Reading the Complaint in its entirety, Ms. Mai has not pleaded facts showing Ms. Elsaden made her statement with either actual knowledge it was false or reckless disregard as to whether it was true.

And the court concluded with the quote I excerpted in the subtitle to this post:

No one likes being called names. But not every alleged insult gives rise to a lawsuit in federal court. Especially where Ms. Mai has alleged that she is so important as to be a public figure, yet failed to allege Ms. Elsaden made her allegedly defamatory statement with actual malice.

Mai’s husband’s defamation lawsuit against Elsaden, based on related claims against him made the same day, remain pending.

The post Defamation Suit Over Businessman’s Wife Calling Prominent Businesswoman “Prostitute” Dismissed appeared first on Reason.com.