No Libel in “Murder for Hire Conspiracy Case Results in Conviction” Headline,

From Magistrate Judge Anthony Porcelli (M.D. Fla.) in Ligeri v. Arizona Daily Independent, LLC, decided March 10 but just posted to Westlaw:

Plaintiff holds himself out as an established entrepreneur in the e-commerce space. He is the Founder and CEO of Kangaroo Manufacturing & Ranked 1Pro Events. Through these businesses, Plaintiff generated “record-breaking sales on Amazon,” fostered a reputation in the online retail sales community, and has shared his expertise on manufacturing, importing, and ranking products on Amazon at various conferences.

At some point, Plaintiff’s business relationship with two associates, Joshua Dean Tischer and John Andrew Burns, soured due to issues with repaying debts. Out of fear for losing his business, Plaintiff made numerous threats of death and bodily injury to Burns and offered to pay someone to harm Tischer and Burns because Plaintiff believed they wronged him. Investigators gathered recorded calls, text messages, and witness statements in furtherance of “a possible murder for hire case.”

Ultimately, in April 2021, the Mesa Police Department arrested and charged Plaintiff with Aggravated Assault, Stalking – Fear of Death, and Stalking – Fear of Physical Injury. Plaintiff was never charged with murder or conspiracy to commit murder or murder for hire. On March 24, 2022, Plaintiff pleaded guilty to Attempt to Commit Stalking.

On March 28, 2022, Defendant published a news report on Plaintiff’s case titled Murder For Hire Conspiracy Case Results In Conviction Of Former Online Retail Star (the “Article”). [Note that the article title actually appears to be “Murder For Hire Conspiracy Case Results In Conviction Of Former Amazon Retail Star.” -EV] The Article summarized the Mesa Police Report on Plaintiff’s investigation, highlighting the threatening quotes relied on in the prosecution. It also noted that Plaintiff was scheduled to be sentenced “in Maricopa County Superior Court for Attempted Stalking with Fear of Physical Injury, a Class 6 felony” and the “[t]hree other felonies, including conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, [were] dismissed by Judge Scott Minder as part of a plea deal.”

In this case, Plaintiff sued Defendant alleging that the Article’s headline is defamatory … because it falsely implied that Plaintiff was involved in a murder for hire scheme, a charge that was never filed. Plaintiff alleges that the title of the Article was false and defamatory because he was never charged with conspiracy to commit murder; that Defendant knew it was false when publishing because it had access to the criminal record; that publishing the Article was done with reckless disregard of the headline’s truthfulness; and that the headline has damaged his character and reputation, impacting his ability to conduct business….

Defendant claims that the statement at issue—the Article read together with the headline—is not defamatory because it is substantially true. Plaintiff counters that the headline should be read alone, and in doing so, represents that he was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, which is false and has damaged his reputation. In the alternative, Plaintiff argues that the headline is ambiguous and should be left to the trier of fact to decide if the statement is understood in a defamatory sense….

Contrary to Plaintiff’s position, the Court finds that the headline and Article together must be considered together. Important to this issue, the parties stipulated that “the body of the Article reported the contents of the Police Report and Plea Agreement.” The Article summarized the Mesa Police Report on Plaintiff’s investigation and provided an update on the status of Plaintiff’s case at the time it was written.

The Article detailed that Plaintiff threatened Tischer and Burns multiple times and contacted others to carry out the violent act. This led to police investigating “a possible murder for hire case” and ultimately Plaintiff’s conviction of attempted stalking. The Article accurately reflects the contents of the police report and Plaintiff’s criminal case including his plea agreement, and Plaintiff agrees as much. Plaintiff also acknowledges that the body of the Article clarifies the headline in that he ultimately pleaded guilty to attempted stalking and the other charges were resolved pursuant to the plea agreement. To that end, Defendant’s use of “Murder for Hire Conspiracy Case” does not affect the substance of the statement such that the “gist” of the story—Plaintiff’s criminal conduct resulting in a conviction—is lost on the reader. Especially in light of the parties’ stipulations, taken together the headline and the Article are substantially true and therefore not defamatory because Defendant’s report fairly summarized Plaintiff’s criminal case. Thus, Plaintiff’s claim is without merit because the allegedly defamatory statement is not false….

[T]he headline of the Article is [also] not ambiguous because it does not state that Plaintiff was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. The plain meaning of the title “Murder For Hire Conspiracy Case Results In Conviction Of Former Online Retail Star” informs the reader that a murder for hire conspiracy case resulted in a conviction, but not necessarily conspiracy to commit murder or murder for hire. And it is true that the investigation into Plaintiff’s criminal conduct resulted in his conviction of attempted stalking.

More than that, the headline does not include Plaintiff’s name, so it is, at most, misleading as to the subject of the Article and the accusation of the crime. Plaintiff still contends that the headline without his name is defamatory because the Article appears as the first hit when Google searching “Justin Ligeri.” Merely Google searching Plaintiff’s name does not unequivocally connect the title of the Article with Plaintiff alone, since another keyword or name search could yield the Article as a result. {For example, the Article populates as a hit when Google searching “Joshua Dean Tischer,” one of the victims named in the report.}

Significantly for this Court’s analysis, Plaintiff has not cited to any precedent to demonstrate that an article associated with an individual through a Google search is sufficient to maintain a defamation action or at the very least, can stand as conduct even attributable to the defendant. While there is no strict requirement in Florida that an allegedly defa med person be named in a publication for the statement to be actionable, Florida courts have long held that if a defamed person is not named in the defamatory publication, “the communication as a whole [must] contain[ ] sufficient facts or references from which the injured person may be determined by the persons receiving the communication.” Plaintiff cannot make that showing here. The headline does not contain sufficient facts or references for one to surmise that Plaintiff is the allegedly injured person. Thus, the headline standing alone is not unambiguously associated with Plaintiff without referencing the body of the report for context, which again this Court underscores is a bedrock principle in determining falsity. So, to the extent that the headline is misleading, that is not enough to establish falsity for a defamation claim and the second paragraph of the Article cures any minor inaccuracy….

Brant C. Hadaway (Diaz Reus & Targ LLP) represents defendant.