Nunes v. Lizza
| Decision Date | 25 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 19-CV-4064 CJW-MAR,20-CV-4003 CJW-MAR |
| Parties | DEVIN G. NUNES, Plaintiff, v. RYAN LIZZA, HEARST MAGAZINES, INC., and HEARST MAGAZINE MEDIA, INC., Defendants. ANTHONY NUNES, JR., ANTHONY NUNES, III and NUSTAR FARMS, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. RYAN LIZZA and HEARST MAGAZINE MEDIA, INC., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
I. BACKGROUND 5
1. The Nunes Case, 19-CV-4064 ............................................ 6
2. The NuStar Case, 20-CV-4003 ........................................... 8
3. Post-Consolidation ......................................................... 10
1. The Nunes Family and NuStar Farms .................................. 11
2. Esquire and Ryan Lizza .................................................. 13
1. Content and Investigation ................................................. 14
2. Editing Process ............................................................. 18
3. Publication .................................................................. 20
4. Retraction ................................................................... 22
5. The Tweet ................................................................... 23
6. Public Mention of the Sibley Farm ..................................... 23
7. Allegations of Federal Immigration Violations ....................... 25
a. NuStar Farms' Onboarding Process ............................ 26
b. NuStar Farms' History of No-Match Issues .................. 29
c. NuStar Farms' Employees with Problematic Documents .......................................................... 31
d. NuStar Farms Employees' Invocation of the Fifth Amendment ......................................................... 35
e. Congressman Devin Nunes' Alleged Knowledge of NuStar Farms' Practices ......................................... 39
f. Congressman Devin Nunes' Family Relationships .......... 40
g. Congressman Devin Nunes' Time in Congress, Sponsorship, and Donations ..................................... 42
8. The Nunes' Reaction Post-Publication ................................. 47
9. Damages ..................................................................... 49
II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD .............................................. 57
III. DISCUSSION ............................................................................... 59
1. Applicable Law ............................................................ 65
2. Elements ..................................................................... 70
a. Publication .......................................................... 70
b. Defamatory Statement ............................................ 70
c. Of and Concerning Plaintiff ..................................... 70
d. Injury to Plaintiff .................................................. 71
e. Falsity ............................................................... 73
f. Negligence .......................................................... 77
1. Applicable Law ............................................................ 83
2. NuStar Plaintiffs' Claim .................................................. 87
a. Juxtaposition of Facts ............................................. 87
b. Republication Under Iowa Law ................................. 87
c. Of and Concerning Plaintiff ..................................... 89
d. Injury ................................................................ 89
e. Falsity of the Implication ......................................... 89
f. Negligence .......................................................... 92
1. Juxtaposition of Facts ..................................................... 93
2. Republication Under California Law ................................... 93
3. Of and Concerning Plaintiff .............................................. 94
4. Injury ........................................................................ 94
5. Falsity of the Implication ................................................. 96
6. Defendants' Intent to Convey Defamatory Impression .............. 98
7. Actual Malice ............................................................... 98
IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................... 101
This matter[1] is before the Court on defendants' motion for summary judgment[2] on plaintiffs Anthony Nunes, Jr., Anthony Nunes, III, and NuStar Farms, LLC's (collectively “NuStar plaintiffs”) complaint[3] alleging defamation (Count I) and defamation by implication (Count II) and on plaintiff Devin Nunes' (“Nunes”) complaint[4]alleging defamation by implication (Count I). (Docs. 118; 121; 103; Case No. 20-CV-4003-CJW-MAR, Doc. 188). Plaintiffs timely filed a resistance. (Doc. 130). Defendants timely replied. (Doc. 138). For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion as to NuStar plaintiffs' claim for defamation (Count I), grants the motion as to NuStar plaintiffs' claim for defamation by implication (Count II), and grants the motion as to Nunes' claim for defamation by implication (Count I).
The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. The Court will consider additional facts as they become relevant to its analysis.
The procedural life of this case is extensive, and as such, the Court discusses only that portion of which is relevant to the motion for summary judgment.
On September 30, 2019, Nunes filed a two-count complaint in this Court. (Doc. 1). Nunes brought Count I for defamation alleging defendants published an article (“the Article”) in Esquire containing false statements of fact concerning Nunes, knowing the statements were defamatory and would be republished and acting with actual malice, harming Nunes. (Id., at 19-22). Count II asserted common-law conspiracy, alleging defendants and others conspired through concerted action to publish a “hit piece”-that is, the Article-that would defame and thus harm Nunes through its lies. (Id. at 22-24). On January 21, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss or strike portions of the complaint citing the California Code of Civil Procedure and also filed to stay discovery and for protective order. (Docs. 15; 17). Then, on February 3, 2020, Nunes filed an amended complaint again alleging defamation and common-law conspiracy. (Doc. 23). That same day, the Court dismissed the January 21, 2020 motion as moot as a result of the amended complaint and allowed leave to refile. (Doc. 24). On February 4, 2020, the Court granted the motion to stay and granted defendants the ability to file a renewed motion to dismiss so long as it was filed by February 18, 2020. (Doc. 26). On February 18, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and to strike. (Doc. 34). On March 31, 2020, the Court extended the stay of discovery by 30 days. (Doc. 45). On August 5, 2020, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of defendants. (Doc. 53). Nunes maintained that there were 12 defamatory statements, including several related to his family's move to Iowa. (Docs. 38; 53, at 22-34). Further, Nunes alleged the statements within the Article together created a false implication-that he, his family, and others including former Representative Steve King, conspired to hide the family's move to Iowa because the farm employs undocumented laborers. (Docs. 38; 53, at 35). In Count II of his complaint, Nunes asserted Lizza and others conspired to defame him by promoting, publishing, and republishing the Article. (Docs. 38; 53, at 47). The Court addressed defendants' motion to dismiss as to the claims in Counts I and II of Nunes' complaint and granted defendants' motion to dismiss on Counts I and II. (Doc. 53). Nunes appealed the Court's August 5 order. (Doc. 55).
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding the case to this Court. (Docs. 60; 61). The Court of Appeals agreed Nunes' complaint failed to sufficiently allege express defamation. (Doc. 60, at 2). Adopting this Court's conclusions, the Court of Appeals held Nunes' complaint did not identify an allegedly defamatory statement, and he could not so raise a statement for the first time on appeal. (Id., at 6). The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, however, on the issue of defamation by implication, finding the complaint stated a claim based on an alleged republication of the Article through a November 20, 2019 tweet (“the Tweet”) defendant Lizza published on his Twitter. (Id., at 2, 14-15). It is plausible, the Court held, that the presentation of facts within the Article are juxtaposed in a way that the implication-that Nunes and his relatives had a politically explosive secret and thus conspired to hide the family's move to Iowa-could be conveyed to the reasonable reader. (Id., at 7-8). What is more, the Court of Appeals found Nunes sufficiently, plausibly alleged each element of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial