Hatfield v. Herring

326 So.3d 944

George E. "Eric" HATFIELD, Amy Leigh Senn, Minor Child, T.R.H., Minor Child, B.C.H., Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.Bobby HERRING, Det. with Caddo Parish Sheriff Dept., Danny Lawler, Member/Manager/Auctioneer with Danny Lawler Enterprises, LLC, Ken Lawler, David Lawler, Defendants-Appellees

No. 54,048-CA

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Judgment rendered August 11, 2021

GILLEY & GILLEY, By: Patricia A. Gilley, Shreveport, Counsel for Appellants

GEORGE E. HATFIELD, AMY L. SENN, In Proper Person, Appellants

PETTIETTE, ARMAND, DUNKELMAN, WOODLEY, BYRD & CROMWELL, LLC, By: Edwin H. Byrd, III, Shreveport, Counsel for Appellee, Bobby Herring

RONALD J. MICIOTTO, STERNBURG, NACCARI & WHITE, LLC, By: Scott L. Sternburg, Counsel for Appellees, Danny Lawler, Ken Lawler, David Lawler

Before PITMAN, STONE, and THOMPSON, JJ.

THOMPSON, J.

A longstanding acrimonious relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants gives rise to this defamation action by an elected official who was a contemporary candidate for another office. Additional plaintiffs include his girlfriend and their two minor children against various individuals, including the owner of a tabloid newspaper, for unflattering publications, actions, and statements. Plaintiffs appeal from a trial court judgment dismissing their suit with prejudice, pursuant to Louisiana's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) statute, La. C.C.P. art. 971, which protects free speech in connection with a public issue, such as opinion relative to a candidate's fitness for public office. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

FACTS

The plaintiffs are Eric Hatfield ("Hatfield"), a Caddo Parish constable, and Amy Leigh Senn ("Senn"), his partner, and their minor children. The defendants are Bobby Herring ("Herring"), who is a Caddo Parish sheriff's deputy, Danny Lawler ("Lawler"), who is the former owner of the weekly newspaper "The Inquisitor," and Ken Lawler and David Lawler, who are his brothers. At all times relative herein, Hatfield held public elected office and was also either a candidate who qualified for an upcoming election for Sheriff of Caddo Parish in 2015 and 2019, or had announced he would be a candidate seeking to be re-elected to his position as a Constable in Caddo Parish.

The record indicates that Hatfield and Senn have a longstanding and very public, acrimonious relationship with Lawler, which includes ongoing competing attacks, ranging from personal interactions to a variety of allegations across various social media platforms. Lawler, primarily through his use of articles in his publication "The Inquisitor" and social media sites, and Hatfied and Senn, through social media, remained embattled during the 2015 and 2019 election cycles when Hatfield was a candidate for Caddo Parish Sheriff. Lawler supported the incumbent in both of those elections. Some of the interactions between these parties during this time period resulted in misdemeanor criminal charges against Senn for pouring a glass of water on Lawler, this litigation instituted by Hatfield, as well as other defamation litigation instituted by Lawler's wife against Hatfield and Senn.

In the present matter, the catalyst for the lawsuit was a series of billboards, a website, and a dancing Santa and elves that all featured the phrase "Lying Eric" and highlighted the website, LyingEric.com. Lawler admits to owning and running the website and having organized the billboards and dancing Santa in 2019. Lawler asserted that Hatfield's expressed qualifications to hold and seek public office, as well as his business and personal dealings, were in conflict with various public records, some of which included court records of litigation involving Hatfield.

In December, 2019, Hatfield and Senn filed suit against the defendants for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Herring and the Lawlers filed special motions to strike, citing La. C.C.P. art. 971, which provides a First Amendment defense to a cause of action arising from an act by a person in furtherance of the person's right to petition or free speech.

The plaintiffs filed a motion to recuse the trial judge, Judge Ramon Lafitte, and on February 18, 2020, a hearing on the motion was held before Judge Charles Tutt. Judge Tutt denied the motion and remanded the matter to Judge Lafitte. On March 4, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on the special motions to strike, and both parties presented argument. The Lawlers subsequently filed a motion to sanction plaintiffs’ counsel for filing the original complaint without a verification. A hearing on the motion for sanctions was conducted, with plaintiffs’ counsel testifying. The trial court denied the motion for sanctions. The Lawlers also filed a motion for sanctions against plaintiffs’ counsel related to her motion to recuse the trial court judge, which was denied by the trial court without a hearing.

On June 18, 2020, the trial court ruled on the motions to strike, granting both motions and dismissing all of the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. The October 9, 2020, judgment dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice and awarded the Lawlers attorney fees for their New Orleans counsel in the amount of $11,925.39, their local counsel in the amount of $7,125.00, and awarded Herring attorney fees in the amount of $8,730.00. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

The right to free speech is guaranteed in the constitutions of both the United States and Louisiana. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or the press[.]" The Louisiana Constitution art. 1, § 7 states that "[n]o law shall curtail or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press. Every person may speak, write, and publish his sentiments on any subject, but is responsible for abuse of that freedom."

In 1999, the Louisiana legislature found that "there had been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for redress of grievances." La. C.C.P. art. 971. These lawsuits are referred to as strategic lawsuits against public participation (or "SLAPP"). The legislature enacted Article 971 intending to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance and to prevent participation from being chilled through an abuse of judicial process. Wainwright v. Tyler , 52,083 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/27/18), 253 So. 3d 203 ; Lee v. Pennington , 02-0381 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/16/02), 830 So. 2d 1037, 1041, writ denied , 02-2790 (La. 1/24/03), 836 So. 2d 52. The legislature enacted Article 971 as a procedural device to be used in the early stages of litigation to screen out meritless claims brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for redress of grievances. Quinlan v. Sugar-Gold , 53,348 (La. App. 2 Cir. 3/11/20), 293 So. 3d 722, writ denied , 20-00744 (La. 10/6/20), 302 So. 3d 536. A special motion to strike is a "specialized defense motion akin to a motion for summary judgment." Lamz v. Wells , 05-1497 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/9/06), 938 So. 2d 792.

La. C.C.P. Art. 971 provides in pertinent part:

A. (1) A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or Louisiana Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established a probability of success on the claim.

(2) In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.

(3) If the court determines that the plaintiff has established a probability of success on the claim, that determination shall be admissible in evidence at any later stage of the proceeding.

B. In any action subject to Paragraph A of this Article, a prevailing party on a special motion to strike shall be awarded reasonable attorney fees and costs.

Article 971 further authorizes a stay on all discovery proceedings in the action upon the filing of the special motion, and the stay remains in place until notice of entry of the order ruling on the motion. La. C.C.P. art. 971(D). Finally, Article 971 defines an "[a]ct in furtherance of a person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or Louisiana Constitution in connection with a public issue" to include "any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest." La. C.C.P. art. 971(F)(1)(c).

Louisiana jurisprudence interprets Article 971 as requiring a two-part, burden-shifting analysis. Wainwright , supra . The mover must first establish that the claims against him arise from an act by him in the exercise of his right of petition or free speech under the United States or Louisiana Constitution in connection with a public issue. Id. If the mover makes a prima facie showing that his comments were constitutionally protected and in connection with a public issue, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of success on the claim as the second part of the analysis. In cases where more than one claim is alleged in the petition, the courts examine the probability of success of each claim individually. If the plaintiff can demonstrate a probability of success on any of his claims, then the special motion to strike must fail. Shelton v. Pavon , 17-0482 (La. 10/18/17), 236 So. 3d 1233.

The granting of a special motion to strike presents a question of law. Questions of law are reviewed de novo , with the judgment rendered on the record, without deference to the legal conclusions of the tribunals below. Qu...