Quigley v. Rosenthal

Decision Date22 April 2003
Docket NumberNo. 01-1228.,01-1228.
Citation327 F.3d 1044
PartiesWilliam J. QUIGLEY; Dorothy Quigley, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Saul F. ROSENTHAL; Anti-Defamation League, Defendants-Appellants. American Jewish Committee; American Jewish Congress; Americans United for Separation of Church and State; Asian Law Caucus; Human Rights Campaign; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund; National Asian Pacific Legal Consortium; National Partnership for Women and Families; Now Legal Defense and Education Fund; People for the American Way Foundation; Violence Policy Center; John T. Baker; Macon Cowles; Bruce S. Garber; Thomas E. Goodreid; Jeffrey Joseph; J.D. MacFarlane; James H. Moss; Edward T. Ramey; David K. Rees; Benjamin J. Sachs; Colorado Lawyers Committee, Amici Curiae.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Thomas B. Kelley, Faegre & Benson LLP, Denver, Colorado (Steven D. Zansberg, Faegre & Benson LLP, Denver, Colorado; Joseph C. Jaudon, and David H. Yun, Jaudon & Avery, LLP, Denver, Colorado, with him on the brief), for the defendants-appellants.

Lawrence W. Treece, Sherman & Howard, LLC, Denver, Colorado (Charlotte Wiessner, Sherman & Howard, LLC, Denver, Colorado; Jay S. Horowitz, Philip L. Gordon, Robert T. Fishman, Horowitz & Wake, Denver, Colorado; and Robert F. Nagel, Boulder, Colorado, with him on the brief), for the plaintiffs-appellees.

David K. Rees, Rees & Associates, P.C., Denver, Colorado, on the brief for John T. Baker, Macon Cowles, Bruce S. Garber, Thomas E. Goodreid, Jeffrey Joseph, J.D. MacFarlane, James H. Moss, Edward T. Ramey, David K. Rees, and Benjamin J. Sachs, amici curiae.

Erwin Chemerinsky, University of Southern California Law School, Los Angeles, California, and Catherine Fisk, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, California, on the brief for American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Asian Law Caucus, Human Rights Campaign, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, National Asian Pacific Legal Consortium, National Partnership for Women and Families; NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, People for the American Way Foundation, and Violence Policy Center, amici curiae.

Steven M. Kaufmann and Brian Neil Hoffman, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Denver, Colorado, on the brief for the Colorado Lawyers Committee, amicus curiae.

Before BRISCOE, BALDOCK, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.

Defendants Saul Rosenthal and the Anti-Defamation League appeal the district court's entry of judgment, following a jury trial, on plaintiffs' claims against them under the federal wiretap act1 for using intercepted cordless telephone conversations, and under Colorado state law for defamation, invasion of privacy by intrusion, and false light invasion of privacy. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, reverse the judgment on plaintiffs' invasion of privacy by intrusion and false light invasion of privacy claims, and affirm the remainder of the judgment. Our partial reversal has no effect upon the damage awards.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs William and Dorothy "Dee" Quigley are residents of Evergreen, Colorado, an upscale suburb in the foothills west of Denver. In August 1994, Mitchell and Candice Aronson moved into a house near the Quigleys. The initial interactions between the Quigleys and the Aronsons were positive. For example, the Quigleys hosted a "welcome party" so the Aronsons could become acquainted with the residents of the neighborhood. Within a month, however, the relationship between the Quigleys and the Aronsons in general, and the relationship between Mrs. Quigley and Mrs. Aronson in particular, soured.

In mid-August 1994, Mrs. Aronson, unbeknownst to Mr. and Mrs. Quigley, took two of the Quigleys' children (ages 14 and 9 at the time) to an R-rated movie. Mrs. Quigley expressed her concern about the incident to Mrs. Aronson. In late September 1994, two of the Quigleys' children were standing outside their home when one of the Aronsons' vehicles, driven by a teenage neighbor and occupied by two of the Aronsons' children, swerved at the Quigley children. Mrs. Quigley again contacted Mrs. Aronson to express her concern. According to Mrs. Quigley, Mrs. Aronson confirmed that the sixteen-year-old neighbor had driven her children to school, but told Mrs. Quigley it was "none of [her] goddamn business." App. at 2117.

Many of the other precipitating events concerned the couples' dogs. In late August 1994, Mr. and Mrs. Quigley were outside their house planting bushes when their dog was attacked by the Aronsons' dog, "Bear." After the Quigleys separated the dogs, Mrs. Quigley called Mrs. Aronson to determine if Bear had been vaccinated. Mrs. Aronson allegedly told Mrs. Quigley that it was "none of [her] goddamn business," id. at 2104, refused to give her any information about Bear, and "let out a slew of obscenities," id. at 2105. In addition, Mrs. Aronson allegedly told Mrs. Quigley that the Quigley children were no longer welcome at the Aronsons' house, that they should stay at their end of the street, and that she (Mrs. Aronson) was tired of giving them sodas. In response, Mrs. Quigley allegedly told Mrs. Aronson that she had no respect for her. Mrs. Aronson allegedly replied, "fuck you." Id. at 2107.

According to the Quigleys, Bear continued to run loose in the neighborhood. In late September or early October 1994, Mrs. Quigley was in her driveway preparing to take her children somewhere when Bear appeared and began acting aggressively toward her ("hunkered down" in a "crouch" and "growling"). Id. at 2120. Immediately after the incident, Mrs. Quigley drove to the Aronsons' house, told Mr. Aronson what had occurred, and informed him that she would contact the local animal control officer if there was another incident. According to Mrs. Quigley, Mr. Aronson said nothing and closed the door in her face.

Mrs. Quigley contacted the animal control office on two occasions in October 1994. On October 4, 1994, Officer James Riddle issued a warning notice to the Aronsons. According to Riddle, Mr. Aronson was "very relaxed about the situation and cordial," but Mrs. Aronson "was very upset, screaming and yelling." Id. at 4652. In particular, Mrs. Aronson stated "that she was going to `get that bitch,'" id., and wanted to issue a warning against the Quigleys. On October 12, 1994, Mrs. Quigley again contacted animal control regarding Bear. After Mrs. Quigley signed a "promise to appear and prosecute," id. at 4659, Officer Riddle issued a summons to the Aronsons.

According to Mrs. Quigley, Mrs. Aronson began acting more aggressively toward her following the second call to animal control. On several occasions when Mrs. Quigley walked her dog past the Aronsons' house, Mrs. Aronson allegedly stepped outside and yelled at Bear to "`go up there and get those pieces of shit [referring to Mrs. Quigley and her dog].'" Id. at 2136. On October 18, 1994, Mrs. Quigley was walking her dog in the neighborhood when Mr. and Mrs. Aronson allegedly approached in their vehicle and came to a "screeching halt behind [her]." Id. at 2138. Mrs. Aronson allegedly rolled down the passenger-side window of the vehicle and started screaming at Mrs. Quigley, calling her a "fat bitch" and telling her to "`get off the road, you piece of shit.'" Id. Mrs. Aronson allegedly continued yelling obscenities at Mrs. Quigley as the Aronsons pulled into their driveway. After getting out of their vehicle, Mrs. Aronson allegedly told Bear to "[g]o get the piece of shit [referring to Mrs. Quigley]," and said to Mrs. Quigley "[y]ou better watch your ass." Id.

Several critical events occurred on October 20, 1994. On that morning, Mr. Quigley was taking his son to school. As he started to drive down the street, Mr. Quigley observed one of the Aronsons' vehicles stopped in the middle of the street faced in his direction. Mr. Quigley drove his vehicle between the Aronsons' vehicle and a garbage dumpster that was by the edge of the street, apparently coming close to the Aronsons' vehicle. As Mr. Quigley passed the Aronsons' vehicle, he observed Mrs. Aronson inside the vehicle and concluded she was glaring at him. Id. at 1681-82.

At some point later that morning, Mr. and Mrs. Aronson, using a police scanner inside their home, overheard part of a conversation over a cordless telephone between Mrs. Quigley and a friend named Katie Ughetta in New York state. During the lengthy (approximately two-hour) conversation, Mrs. Quigley and Ms. Ughetta apparently discussed the growing dispute between the Quigleys and the Aronsons. The Aronsons recorded the conversation. At the end of the conversation, Mrs. Quigley and Ms. Ughetta bantered about the Aronsons:

Ughetta: And keep up the good work to isolate the Aronsons. I'll be praying for you. They're outside (unintelligible).

Quigley: Well, if something big happens, you know, like there's a house burning or something, I'll call you.

Ughetta: Absolutely. Well, you can do that for — is it the 30th? Is that that Guy Hawkes Day? Guy Fox? Guy Fox Day?

Quigley: Guy Fuck Day?

* * *

Ughetta: Guy Fox? It's the English one where they burn the scarecrow in effigy. I believe it's Guy Fox. I can't remember (unintelligible).

Quigley: Well, I love the name, but I don't know what it means.

Ughetta: Yeah, I think they — I think something happened in British history where this guy was, like, you know, really bad news, like a serial killer like....

Quigley: Jack the Ripper.

Ughetta: A Jack the Ripper kind of thing.

Quigley: Yeah.

Ughetta: I think that's what he was, and so every — every year, I think it's the day before Halloween, instead of celebrating Halloween, they celebrate Guy Fox Day and they burn ...

Quigley: Oh.

Ughetta: ... these scarecrow dummies in effigy of him.

Quigley: Oh.

Ughetta: So find out. Find out....

To continue reading

Request your trial
50 cases
  • U.S. v. Brown, No. 03-8027.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • March 9, 2005
    ...United States v. Johnson, 183 F.3d 1175, 1179 n. 2 (10th Cir.1999), nor a stipulated agreement by defense counsel, Quigley v. Rosenthal, 327 F.3d 1044, 1064-65 (10th Cir.2003), to add the "use or carry" language. Indeed, the error appears to be inadvertent. 6. Tenth Circuit precedent establ......
  • Brokers' Choice of Am., Inc. v. NBC Universal, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • June 28, 2017
    ...must prove actual malice, see Diversified Mgmt., Inc. v. Denver Post, Inc. , 653 P.2d 1103, 1105-06 (Colo. 1982) ; Quigley v. Rosenthal , 327 F.3d 1044, 1058 (10th Cir. 2003), and they must prove the defamatory statement is materially false by "clear and convincing evidence," see Bustos , 6......
  • AKH Co. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., Case No. 13-2003-JAR-KGG
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • October 7, 2019
    ...contractor, a liability insurer cannot be held liable for the attorney's tortious conduct.").187 See, e.g. , Quigley v. Rosenthal , 327 F.3d 1044, 1064 n.10 (10th Cir. 2003) (acknowledging that attorneys are both independent contractors and agents); Oei v. N. Star Capital Acquisitions, LLC ......
  • Clements-Jeffrey v. City of Springfield, Case No. 3:09–cv–84.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • August 22, 2011
    ...or seclusion. See Beard, 517 F.Supp. at 132; Fields, 985 F.Supp. at 1312–13. One other case is quite instructive. In Quigley v. Rosenthal, 327 F.3d 1044 (10th Cir.2003), the Aronsons made illegal tape recordings of their neighbors' cordless telephone conversations, and then filed a complain......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Privacy in a Time of Drones
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 50-6, June 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...1060 (Colo. 1998). [37] Id. at 1067 38. Id. at 1066. [39] See 18 U.S.C. § 2520. [40] See CRS § 18-9-303(1)(a). Cf. Quigley v. Rosenthal, 327 F.3d 1044, 1073 (10th Cir. 2003) (interception of private telephone conversations qualifies as an intentional intrusion into one's seclusion or solitu......
  • Chapter 23 - § 23.3 • ELEMENTS DEFINED
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Civil Claims: Elements; Defenses and Sample Pleadings (CBA) Chapter 23 Invasion of Privacy
    • Invalid date
    ...904 P.2d 1337.[87] Id.[88] Id.[89] Id.[90] Id.[91] Id.[92] Pearson v. Kancilia, 70 P.3d 594, 599 (Colo. 2003).[93] Quigley v. Rosenthal, 327 F.3d 1044 (10th Cir. 2003).[94] Id. at 1049.[95] Id. at 1073.[96] Id.[97] Compare Doe, 972 P.2d at 1068, with Slaughter v. John Elway Dodge Southwest/......
  • Chapter 23 - § 23.4 • DEFENSES
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Civil Claims: Elements; Defenses and Sample Pleadings (CBA) Chapter 23 Invasion of Privacy
    • Invalid date
    ...28:11, Source and Authority (CLE ed. 2018) and § 23.4.3.[128] Compare Joe Dickerson & Assocs., 34 P.3d 995, with Quigley v. Rosenthal, 327 F.3d 1044 (10th Cir. 2003) (intercepted telephone conversations between private individuals are not matters of public concern protected subject to First......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT