Sassone v. Elder

Decision Date18 October 1993
Docket NumberNo. 92-C-1856,92-C-1856
Citation626 So.2d 345
Parties22 Media L. Rep. 1049 Martha E. SASSONE, et al. v. William S. ELDER, et al.
CourtLouisiana Supreme Court

Thomas A. Rayer, New Orleans, for applicant.

John D. Rawls, New Orleans, for respondent.

Mark Benjamin Holton, New Orleans, amicus curiae, for Louisiana Press Ass'n.

LEMMON, Justice. *

This is a defamation action filed by two attorneys against an investigative television reporter, William S. Elder, and the television station that employed Elder. Plaintiffs seek to recover the damages they sustained because of allegedly defamatory remarks about plaintiffs during the station's televised reports of the investigation of plaintiffs' client, Marie Giordano Lloyd, who along with hundreds of other heirs of Juan Ronquille contracted with plaintiffs to recover title from the State of Louisiana to mineral-rich lands in Plaquemines Parish known as the Cheniere Ronquille tract.

The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs' action. The court noted that failure to dismiss an unwarranted defamation action by summary judgment produces long and expensive litigation which has a chilling effect upon free speech.

The court of appeal reversed the summary judgment. 601 So.2d 792. The court first determined that plaintiffs were not "public figures" and therefore were not burdened, under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964) and Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1967), with having to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statements were made with actual malice. 1 Further citing Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 110 S.Ct. 2695, 111 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990), the court concluded that the televised reports contained statements that could reasonably be understood to imply actual facts (as opposed to opinions) about plaintiffs which were capable of defamatory meaning when interpreted by a reasonable juror. Accordingly, the court held that there were actionable factual assertions on which the district court should proceed to trial on the merits.

On defendants' application, this court granted certiorari to determine whether summary judgment was appropriate in this case. 605 So.2d 1105.

Facts

Juan Ronquille originally acquired the pertinent tract by Spanish land grant. The tract was eventually transferred to the State of Louisiana. For several years Lloyd, an heir of Ronquille, and her former attorneys attempted to locate other Ronquille heirs for the purpose of presenting a claim for return of the tract, telling the heirs that the State was holding in escrow $63,000,000,000 in mineral royalties from these lands. 2 Claiming to have a key document that would prove their claim to the land and demanding the heirs' signing of contracts as a prerequisite to share in use of the document, Lloyd entered into written contracts with hundreds of potential heirs, who agreed to give Lloyd twenty-five percent and the attorneys twenty-five percent of any recovery. 3 Additionally, the contracting heirs contributed various sums, some as much as $5,000, to help defray the expenses of the research, investigation and prosecution of a class action to recover the property. 4 At some time prior to 1986, plaintiffs took over the representation of Lloyd and the other heirs.

In early 1986 several class members, concerned that there were discrepancies in the genealogy and that Lloyd may be misleading and misusing them, contacted Elder, who began an investigation of Lloyd's activities. Elder interviewed other heirs and also contacted Douglas Greenburg, the district attorney of Terrebonne Parish where many of the heirs lived and where a grand jury was conducting an investigation into Lloyd's transactions. In May of 1986, Elder attended a meeting of the heirs arranged by Lloyd and the plaintiffs for the purpose of revising the contracts. 5 Elder interviewed several of the heirs in attendance, and the cameraman filmed portions of the interviews and of the meeting.

Elder and the station televised a series of investigative reports between June 1 and July 7, 1986, which showed clips of the May meeting, portions of Elder's interviews with the heirs and with Greenburg, and comments by Elder on the investigation.

Plaintiffs then filed the instant action, claiming that Elder defamed them in these broadcasts. In their petition plaintiffs alleged that Elder, intending to damage plaintiffs' professional reputations, broadcast knowingly false statements that plaintiffs rushed non-clients into signing legal contracts, did not have professional offices or telephones, were attempting to take the heirs "to the cleaners," refused to divulge their last names to their clients, misrepresented the purpose of the meetings, were afraid to have their contracts examined, charged exorbitant and inconsistent fees, unethically solicited clients, refused to give any accounting or answers to the clients, and "entered into an unlawful conspiracy with a 'criminal charlatan of the worst order' for the purpose of 'duping simple people who really need their money' and for the purpose of committing 'extortion' and actions 'smacking of fraud.' " Plaintiffs further alleged that Elder suppressed favorable facts, refused to retract statements after learning of their falsity, presented staged events, used innuendo to distort and misrepresent taped statements, and violated professional ethics.

After defendants' answer and extensive discovery, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs opposed the motion with affidavits by each plaintiff and by a former investigative television reporter who stated his opinion that the televised reports violated industry standards for ethical and accurate reporting. Also filed in connection with the motion were videotapes of the newscasts, accompanied by written transcripts, which may be described generally as follows: 6

June 1, 1986--10 p.m. 7

The film shows Lloyd "firing up" a crowd of potential heirs with comments such as "[w]e're looking at the Golden Gates." Then there were statements by meeting attendees, followed by Elder's history of the Cheniere Ronquille tract and the activities of the Gretna housewife in gathering heirs to present their claims. Elder stated that Lloyd claimed to hold a key document which would be used to prove their title to the land and demanded that the heirs sign a contract with her in order to avail themselves of the document. After a commentary by three potential heirs on how much money Lloyd collected for the contracts, Elder described, with clips, heirs who were upset about lack of progress and the division in families over the issue. Elder then told of complaints to public officials:

Elder: Before long people were complaining to authorities in several parishes. The case, however, interested only one. District Attorney Doug Greenburg of Terrebonne Parish began digging into the matter.

Greenburg: It's an extortion. I think it smacks of fraud, the taking of anything of value from someone by fraudulent conduct or representation or practice.

Elder: Greenburg says he became angered over who the victims were.

Greenburg: They're mostly little simple people, who probably are not the most educated or informed and very gullible and very human.

Elder: Greenburg's investigation centered on this contract (showing the contract). In it Marie Lloyd Giordano obligates the heirs to pay twenty-five percent to her and twenty-five percent to the lawyers, in the event of any settlement. It also obligates the signee to forfeit $50,000, should they try and break the contract. Now during the week of May 6th, Marie Lloyd Giordano and her attorneys, Joey Montgomery and Martha Sassone, call a meeting at the V.F.W. hall in Gretna. The purpose is to change the contract, the one which the District Attorney is looking into.

Elder stated that the heirs attended in the expectation it would be the final meeting and would bring news of the settlement. Lloyd then explained to Elder the reason for the meeting (to correct the error in the contract granting her a contingent share of the recovery). Then the film returns to the meeting, with Lloyd exciting the crowd and offering to autograph copies of newspaper stories of Greenburg's investigation. Elder and the camera were removed from the room before Lloyd discussed the contracts with the crowd. Lloyd then told the heirs who didn't want to sign the contract to leave, and they would be sent a bill for all services. Elder then asked plaintiff Montgomery:

Elder: Let me ask you why are you afraid for us to look at the contract.

Montgomery: This is our personal business. This is a contract, a contingency contract. We're not interested in having the news media in on this. I don't think it's any of your affair. But you may--we talked to you about it before. This is our own business. I think this is an internal matter of the group, and I think its a matter of--

Elder: You're not trying to take these people to the cleaners, are you?

Montgomery: No sir-ree.

Elder then pictured three of Lloyd's critics outside the hall:

Elder: Outside of the hall, some people were beginning to get upset over what had taken place.

Critic: I think that these people are making an honest living at what they're doing. They're out there busting their behinds to make the money they're getting. Now if she's ripping them off, she needs to stay in here and tell these people the truth.

Critic: You are not allowed to talk to an attorney. If you talk to an attorney you are charged $50. My daughter tried to reach the attorneys. They do not have a working number.

Critic: Marie herself told us that there was billions in escrow. She told us that herself, and she also told us that the claims were already filed.

Elder then reported checking with the Department of Natural Resources and learning that there was no escrow account.

Elder...

To continue reading

Request your trial
198 cases
  • Hoffman v. Bailey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • June 20, 2017
    ...at 10 (La. 6/29/99), 737 So.2d 706, 715 ; Trentecosta v. Beck, 96–2388, at 10 (La. 10/21/97), 703 So.2d 552, 559 ; Sassone v. Elder, 626 So.2d 345, 350 (La. 1993) ).205 Bell v. Rogers, 29,757 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/20/97), 698 So.2d 749, 753 (citing Brannan v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 526 So.2......
  • Nunes v. Lizza
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • August 5, 2020
    ...requirement) reh'g denied (Sept. 28, 2018), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1216, 203 L.Ed.2d 208 (2019) ; Sassone v. Elder , 626 So. 2d 345, 354 (La. 1993) ("[A]dequate protection of freedom of the press at least requires that the plaintiffs prove that the alleged implication is t......
  • Phillips v. Whittington
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
    • October 28, 2020
    ...or other fault, published a false statement with defamatory words which caused plaintiff damages.’ " Id. (quoting Sassone v. Elder , 92-C-1856 (La. 1993), 626 So.2d 345, 350 ). Words which expressly or implicitly accuse another of criminal conduct are considered defamatory per se , and the ......
  • Huckabee v Time Warner Entertainment
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 4, 2000
    ...Bankers Trust Co., 546 N.W.2d 901, 904-05 (Iowa 1996); Knudsen v. Kansas Gas & Elec. Co., 807 P.2d 71, 81 (Kan. 1991); Sassone v. Elder, 626 So.2d 345, 351 (La. 1993); Tucci v. Guy Gannett Publishing Co., 464 A.2d 161, 167 (Me. 1983); ELM Med. Laboratory, Inc. v. RKO General, Inc., 532 N.E.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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