George Dixon v. San Andreas Network

[Levy, Bell & Weinstein]

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS

CIVIL DIVISION

 

Case Name: George Dixon v. San Andreas Network

Plaintiff Attorney: Ari Levy

 

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

_______________________________________________

 

1. Check one box below that best describes this case:

 

Personal Torts

[ ] Assault, battery, or unlawful contact

[ ] False imprisonment

[ ] Intentional infliction of emotional distress

[ ] Deprivation of rights under color of law

 

Negligent Torts

[ ] Breach of duty

[ ] Negligent infliction of emotional distress

[ ] Professional or Medical Negligence

 

Property Torts

[ ] Trespassing or Conversion

[ ] Nuisance

[ ] Theft

[ ] Detainder

 

Dignitary Torts

[X] Defamation (Slander or Libel)

[ ] Invasion of privacy

[ ] Breach of confidence

[ ] Abuse of process

[ ] Malicious prosecution

[ ] Alienation of affections

 

Business Torts

[ ] Fraud

[ ] Tortious interference

[ ] Conspiracy

[ ] Restraint of trade

[ ] Passing off

 

Contracts

[ ] Breach of Contract

[ ] Collections

 

Judicial Review

[ ] Denial or Revocation of Business License

[ ] Denial or Revocation of Firearms License

 

2. List any damages sustained or fees accrued.Include billing rate for attorneys, expert witnesses, etc.

• $1,000,000 in attorney fees

• $250,000 in emotional damage and distress

_______________________________________________

Certification. The undersigned swears or affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained herein is truthful to the best of his knowledge.

 

Sworn this 22nd day of June, 2024 by:

 

/S/ NAME OF PLAINTIFF

George Dixon

Plaintiff

 

/S/ NAME OF ATTORNEY
Ari Levy

Attorney for Plaintiff

 

[Fabi]

* The clerk's office would process the cover sheet. The case would be registered under docket "BCV24001". The plaintiff would be informed to forward the Case Brief accordingly. * 

 

@Levy, Bell & Weinstein

[Levy, Bell & Weinstein]

Plaintiff v. Defendant

 

Case Number: BCV24001

Prepared by: Ari Levy

 

CIVIL CASE BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF

_______________________________________________

 

Argument

1. San Andreas Network is a news agency operating in San Andreas, headquartered in Commerce, Los Santos. George Dixon is Associate Warden with the SADCR. 

2. On the 21st of June 2024, Catherine Church, a journalist with this agency, released an article defaming Warden Dixon, claiming he "beat an inmate to within an inch of his life", and put his collegues life at risk.

3. She also talked about the Warden and this article during her show on the same date, interviewing a former inmate who likened Warden Dixon to President Nixon.

4. At no point were the Warden's accusations highlighted as anecdotal. They were presented as indisputed fact.

5. The Warden excercised appropriate physical force to restrain the inmate, and his collegues were not endanged beyond the level of risk expected and assumed in roles of their nature.

6. As a result of this defamation, Warden Dixon has sustained significant emotional distress, public backlash, and fears this libelous story may affect career prospects.

 

 

Exhibits

1. Exhibit one is the article written by Miss Church, posted on the SAN website.

(( Link to OOC Proof ))

2. Exhibit two is a disciplinary report for Ignacio Huerta, the aforementioned inmate, which explains the neccessary use of force.

(( Link to OOC Proof ))

 

Witness List

1. Alex Driver

(( Link to Forum Profile ))

 

_______________________________________________

Certification. The undersigned swears or affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained herein is truthful to the best of his knowledge.

 

Sworn this 28th day of June, 2024 by:

 

/s/ NAME OF ATTORNEY

Ari Levy

 

[Fabi]

* The case is accepted and submitted to the docket of Judge Sergio Robleto. *

 

"It's been determined by the Court that cause of action exists under the presented circumstances. As such, I'm mandating the plaintiff to serve the opposing party or their counsel and provide proof of the notification to the court. I'll be expecting an update in a maximum of 48 hours regarding this."

 

(( Please make sure to inform the party at an OOC level as well and attach proof accordingly. Thank you! @Levy, Bell & Weinstein ))

 

 

Edited June 28, 2024 by Fabi

[Levy, Bell & Weinstein]

The defense has been notified.

[Fabi]

The Defendant or his counsel is ordered to enter a plea on or before July 3rd, 2024 at 10:00 PM (( server time )) or a default judgment shall issue to the Plaintiff.

 

(( @Levy, Bell & Weinstein @Yaffa - Check the guide for filling a civil case for more information, if required. ))

[Levy]

Your honor, we request a default judgement. 
 

@Fabi @Cashew

[Fabi]

The Court will re-examine the matter and render a judgement.

Edited July 5, 2024 by Fabi

[Fabi]

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS, COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS

 

PLAINTIFF: George Nixon

DEFENDANT: San Andreas Network

 

CASE NUMBER: BCV24001

 

JUDGEMENT BY DEFAULT

_______________________________________________
 

I. BACKGROUND
 

The factual background surrounding Mr George Nixon’s libel by the San Andreas Network is summarized below, followed by an overview of the procedural history of this case. The factual background is based upon the detailed case brief submitted by the Plaintiff in support of their motion for default judgment, as well as attached exhibits.

 

II. FINDINGS OF FACTS

 

1. Plaintiff George Nixon has standing to pursue this action. Mr Nixon is an Associate Warden with the San Andreas Department of Correction and Rehabilitation.

 

2.  Defendant San Andreas Network is a public corporation duly organized, existing, and operating under the laws of the State of San Andreas.

 

3. On June 22nd, 2024, the San Andreas Network published an article redacted by one of their journalists, Ms Catherine Church, regarding the activity of the Plaintiff and the alleged fact he was "abusing inmates [and] endangering correctional officers". See Ex. 1. 

 

4. In the aforementioned news article, an attached video recording evidentiates the Plaintiff engaging in a physical altercation with now-identified Mr Ignacio Huerta.

 

5. According to the presented disciplinary segragration report (hereinafter "report"), on the night of June 18th, 2024, Mr Ignacio Huerta confronted the Plaintiff by verbally assaulting him, being uncooperative and eventually grasping at his uniform shirt. See Ex. 2. Due to the uncontested nature of this official report, this Court presumes its contents to be veridic.

 

6. Mr Ignacio Huerta was subdued through use of force, precisely physical force, less-than-letal weaponry and OC spray. See Ex. 1 and 2. No further details are presented regarding his medical condition ex post. 

 

III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

Plaintiff Mr George Nixon filed this lawsuit against the Defendant, the San Andreas Network, on June 22, 2024. See Cover sheet. Mr Nixon served the San Andreas Network in accordance with state statutes on civil procedure. After the expiration of the five-day period granted to the defendant to answer, the Plaintiff sought entry of default and instantly requested a default judgement, supported by the case brief and presented exhibits. The Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is now ripe for review.

 

IV. LEGAL STANDARD

 

In the absence of binding state-level case law regarding such matters, this Court recognizes the persuasive authority of all federal courts.

 

A court may consider entering a default judgment when a party applies for that relief. “Strong policies favor resolution of disputes on their merits,” and therefore, “‘the default judgment must normally be viewed as available only when the adversary process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive party.’” Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831, 836 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

 

Notwithstanding its appropriateness in some circumstances, “entry of a default judgment is not automatic.” Mwani v. bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Thus, the procedural posture of a default does not relieve a court of its “affirmative obligation” to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the action. James Madison Ltd. by Hecht v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Additionally, “a court should satisfy itself that it has personal jurisdiction before entering judgment against an absent defendant.” Mwani, 417 F.3d at 6. The “plaintiffs retain ‘the burden of proving personal jurisdiction, [and] they can satisfy that burden with a prima facie showing.’”. In doing so, “they may rest their argument on their pleadings, bolstered by such affidavits and other written materials as they can otherwise obtain.” Id. at 7.

 

This Court has found all aforementioned requirements to be met.

 

V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. This Court has general subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to state statutes.

 

2. To prevail on a claim of defamation under San Andreas law, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: 1) a false and defamatory statement concerning another; 2) an unprivileged publication to a third party; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence on the part of the publisher; and 4) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm caused by the publication. 

 

3. This Court finds that the statements made by the Defendant about the Plaintiff were false and defamatory, constituting libel per se. No explanatory matter is necessary to establish the defamatory character of the statements due to this being a default judgement. The Defendant failed to contest the claims of the Plaintiff. 

 

VI. DAMAGES AND FEES

 

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory damages due to suffered emotional distress and attorney fees. See Cover sheet. The damages to which the plaintiff is entitled are described below.

 

A. Compensatory damages

 

The purpose of damages is to put the plaintiff in the position he would have been in if the tort had not been committed — restitutio in integrum. Damages are not awarded to over-enrich a plaintiff far beyond his actual losses. The reverse is also the case — the plaintiff should not get far less than his actual loss. Furthermore, a wide range of reporting about both public officials and candidates is protected. Certainly, the conduct of official duties by public officials is subject to the widest scrutiny and criticism. See Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 85 (1966). But the Court has held as well that criticism that reflects generally upon an official’s integrity and honesty is protected. According to different statutes, the term “public official” means, inter alia, "any elected official, appointed official, or employee of a Federal, State, or local unit of government in the United States".

 

Substantial damages may be awarded in tort for presumed injury to reputation merely upon a showing of publication. But this discretion has the potential to inhibit the exercise of freedom of the press, and moreover permitted the penalization of unpopular opinion through the awarding of damages. Therefore, defamation plaintiffs who do not prove actual malice — that is, knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth — will be limited to compensation for actual provable injuries, such as out-of-pocket loss, impairment of reputation and standing, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering. A plaintiff who proves actual malice will be entitled as well to collect punitive damages. See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) at 348-50.

 

Therefore, this Courts disapproves on the presence of actual malice and will limit the compensation as deemed reasonable. Having examined closely the facts of this particular case, George Nixon is entitled to $75,000, to account for the suffered emotional distress.

 

B. Attorney fees 

 

The general rule of law known as the "American rule" is that attorney’s fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception. This rule is generally followed throughout the country, including the State of San Andreas. There are few exceptions. For example, a specific contractual term may provide for the recovery of attorney’s fees and costs or a statute may confer such rights. It has also been recognized that bad faith is an exception to the American rule, which permits a court to award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party on the basis of bad faith conduct of the other party or the other party’s attorney.

 

This Court has found no exceptions to be incident hence no attorney fees will be awarded in this matter.

 

VII. CONCLUSIONS

 

For the reasons outlined above, the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is granted. The San Andreas Network is liable for the defemation through libel of Mr George Nixon. The plaintiff is entitled to $75,000 in general damages as emotional distress.

 

 

_______________________________________________

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

DATE: JULY 9, 2024

 

/s/ SERGIO ROBLETO

San Andreas Superior Court Judge

 

(( Thank you for your patience! @Levy @Levy, Bell & Weinstein @Cashew @Yaffa ))