Charalambopoulos v. Grammer
| Decision Date | 15 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-2424-D |
| Parties | DIMITRI CHARALAMBOPOULOS, Plaintiff-counterdefendant, v. CAMILLE GRAMMER, Defendant-counterplaintiff. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Plaintiff-counterdefendant Dimitri Charalambopoulos ("Charalambopoulos") sues defendant-counterplaintiff Camille Grammer ("Grammer") for defamation and related claims arising from her accusations that he assaulted her and tried to gain entry to her neighborhood in violation of a protective order. Grammer moves for partial summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the court grants the motion in part and denies it in part.
Because this case is the subject of several prior memorandum opinions and orders, see, e.g., Charalambopoulos v. Grammer, 2015 WL 2451182 (N.D. Tex. May 22, 2015) (Fitzwater, J.) ("Charalambopoulos II"); Charalambopoulos v. Grammer, 2015 WL 390664 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2015) (Fitzwater, J.) ("Charalambopoulos I"), the court will recount only the background facts and procedural history that are pertinent to this decision.1
In October 2013 Grammer, an American television personality and the former wife of actor Kelsey Grammer, was diagnosed with cancer and traveled to M.D. Anderson hospital in Houston for surgery. After her surgery, Grammer and Charalambopoulos, who was then her boyfriend, stayed at the Hotel ZaZa in Houston while Grammer recovered.
According to Charalambopoulos, early in the morning of October 16, 2013, Grammer awakened him to confront him about a text message he had received from a female friend who had helped arrange Grammer's treatment at M.D. Anderson. Grammer yelled at him, broke his cell phone, and began to strike him. Charalambopoulos then called Grammer a "fame whore," at which point she became "violently enraged," threatening "to call the police and say that [Charalambopoulos had] abused her." P. Br. 1 (quoting P. App. 2). Charalambopoulos contends that he gathered his belongings and departed without physically assaulting Grammer.
After Charalambopoulos left, Grammer told a hotel employee that "her boyfriend had just assaulted her" (the "Alleged Assault"), and the hotel employee called the police. Id. at 2 (quoting P. App. 70). After Houston Police Department ("HPD") Officer Matthew Vo ("Officer Vo") arrived at the scene, Grammer told him that Charalambopoulos had pulled her hair, gotten on top of her, pinned her down, and pushed her nose upward, making her head tilt back.
After Grammer returned to California, she filed on October 29, 2013 a request for a domestic violence restraining order (the "Request for Restraining Order") in the Los Angeles County Superior Court based on the Alleged Assault. Before Grammer filed the Request for Restraining Order, however, she tweeted to more than 198,000 followers on her Twitter account the following tweets: "Yes, it was horrible what happened to me two days out of the hospital," and "I was in fear for my life." P. App. 224-25. Grammer's tweets attracted the attention of multiple media outlets that reported on the Alleged Assault and Request for Restraining Order. Grammer also appeared on The Dr. Oz Show, where she told the host and viewers that she had been "physically abused and assaulted." P. Br. 3 (citation omitted). After conducting a contested hearing on January 6, 2014, the California Superior Court entered a Restraining Order After Hearing ("Order of Protection") based on "a preponderance of the evidence." D. App. 343, 349.
In Texas, the HPD assigned Officer Bertha Massie ("Officer Massie") to investigate the Alleged Assault. During the investigation, Grammer gave Officer Massie three statements. Officer Massie called Grammer and took her first statement on October 29, 2013. Two days later, Grammer called Officer Massie and gave a second statement. Officer Massie took Grammer's third statement a few weeks later. Charalambopoulos contends that Grammer's third statement was supplied by Grammer in writing and was unsolicited by Officer Massie. On November 22, 2013 Charalambopoulos was charged with third degree felony assault of a family member by impeding breath. A Harris County magistrate judgeentered a protection order against him. Charalambopoulos was detained, fingerprinted, and photographed before being released on bond.
In April 2014 Grammer accused Charalambopoulos of trying to gain access to her residence, in violation of court orders. According to Grammer, on April 7, 2014 a male and female drove up to her secured neighborhood guardhouse and informed the security guard that the female had an appointment with Grammer. Based on a photograph of Charalambopoulos that was posted inside the guardhouse, the security guard identified the male driver as Charalambopoulos. The security guard contacted Grammer to ask whether she was expecting an appointment. He informed Scott MacLean ("MacLean"), Grammer's assistant, and Grammer that the male driver was Charalambopoulos. Grammer alleges that, after learning this information, she called Jen Heger ("Heger") of RadarOnline.com ("RadarOnline") to find out whether any photographers employed by RadarOnline had seen Charalambopoulos in the Los Angeles area, and she told Heger what the guard had told her about the incident at the guardhouse (the "Alleged Stalking").2 Charalambopoulos contends that "[o]nce again, the media reported [Grammer]'s allegations against Charalambopoulos." P. Br. 5. When Grammer reviewed the surveillance video eight days later, however, she determined that the male driver was not Charalambopoulos.
On May 28, 2014 a Harris County, Texas grand jury issued a "no bill," dismissing all criminal charges stemming from Grammer's allegation that Charalambopoulos had assaultedher on October 16, 2013. Charalambopoulos then filed this lawsuit against Grammer in Texas state court, alleging claims for defamation, defamation per se, malicious prosecution, negligence, gross negligence/malice, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"). Grammer removed the case to this court, answered, and asserted counterclaims for assault, battery, IIED, defamation, and defamation per se.3
Grammer moved to dismiss Charalambopoulos' amended petition under the Texas Citizens' Participation Act ("TCPA"), Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 27.001-27.011 (West 2015), an anti-SLAPP statute.4 The court dismissed Charalambopoulos' claims for negligence, gross negligence, fraud, and IIED. Regarding Charalambopoulos' claims for defamation and defamation per se, the court held:
to the extent these claims are based on statements that Grammer made in the Request for Restraining Order, they are dismissed because such statements are absolutely privileged. To the extent these claims are based on statements that Grammer made to Officer Vo, they are not dismissed. To the extent they are based on Grammer's statements to third parties that do not pertain to any judicial or official proceeding—such as the tweets to her Twitter followers, her statements on The Dr. Oz Show, her statement to the Hotel ZaZa employee, and her statements to doctors at M.D. Anderson—they are not dismissed. To theextent these claims are based on Grammer's allegedly making defamatory statements to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department regarding the Alleged Stalking, or making defamatory statements to the media pertaining to the Request for Restraining Order, or making defamatory statements to the media pertaining to the report of the Alleged Stalking to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, the court defers a final decision and permits Charalambopoulos to conduct specified and limited discovery.
Charalambopoulos I, 2015 WL 390664, at *28. In Charalambopoulos II the court dismissed Charalambopoulos' defamation and defamation per se claims to the extent they were based on Grammer's publishing the contents of her Request for Restraining Order to the media and reporting (through her assistant) the Alleged Stalking to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.
After obtaining leave of court, Charalambopoulos filed on December 28, 2015 a second amended complaint in which he asserts claims for defamation and defamation per se based on Grammer's publication of allegedly defamatory statements to 25 different individuals or entities,5 malicious prosecution, negligence, and gross negligence/malice.
Grammer now moves for partial summary judgment on the following claims and defenses: Charalambopoulos' claims for negligence and gross negligence/malice; Grammer's defense of collateral estoppel; Charalambopoulos' claim for malicious prosecution; certain of Charalambopoulos' claims for defamation and defamation per se; Charalambopoulos' claim for exemplary damages (to the extent based on his defamation and defamation per se claims); and Charalambopoulos' claim for damages to finances caused by the necessity to hire California counsel. Charalambopoulos opposes Grammer's motion.
When a summary judgment movant will not have the burden of proof on a claim at trial, she can obtain summary judgment by pointing the court to the absence of evidence on any essential element of the nonmovant's claim. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Once she does so, the nonmovant must go beyond his pleadings and designate specific facts demonstrating that there is a genuine issue for trial. See id. at 324; Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (per curiam). An issue is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmovant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The nonmovant's failure to produce proof as to any essential element renders all other facts immaterial. See TruGreen Landcare, L.L.C. v. Scott, 512 F.Supp.2d 613, 623 (N.D. Tex. 2007) (Fitzwater,J....
To continue reading
Request your trial