Co-Founder Dee Lincoln Resigns From Nationally Renowned Del Frisco's Indulging all inferences in Wamstad's favor, nonetheless, the Statements in the Article were not inherently improbable or based on obviously dubious information. Dracos, 92 S.W.2d at 255. Turner, 38 S.W.3d at 120. He challenged nearly all of the statements in the Article as defamatory, as well as other statements the Individual Defendants allegedly made to Stuertz that did not appear in the Article (collectively, "Statements"). The restaurant is the latest culinary project by restaurateur Dale Wamstad. 452, 458 (N.D.Tex.1988) (businessman, the subject of consumer complaints and suits, was public figure because by his conduct he voluntarily engaged in a course that was bound to invite attention and comment). The divorce court thus disagreed with the trial court's determination, in the previous criminal trial, that Rumore acted in self-defense. Dale Wamstad is Back in the Restaurant Business: Four Sisters Caf in Even after Rumore was acquitted based on self-defense, the New Orleans press continued to cover the couple's subsequent suits against each other, including Wamstad's suit in 1997 against Rumore for damages from shooting him and Rumore's subsequent countersuit for $5 million. The feud reportedly began in 1981 when Wamstad claimed Fertel's son had slipped her recipes to him. Accordingly, the affidavits negate actual malice and thus shift the burden to Wamstad to produce controverting evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact concerning actual malice. Id. See Tex. Each Defendant filed a traditional motion for summary judgment under rule 166a(c) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.4 Tex.R. Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1297. That the Media Defendants published her Statements anyway, his argument goes, is evidence of actual malice. Rem. . at 455 (ongoing alleged bait and switch sales practices); and McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 569 (why government raid failed). McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 572-73. Independent evidence is required: Id. The family he abandoned in New Orleans has a bone to pick with that." Bob Cooper--is a little off his T-bone, you may be right. She also describes her subsequent divorce from Wamstad in 1987 and her post-divorce suit against Wamstad in 1995, alleging that he defrauded her with respect to her earlier community-property settlement.2 Trial in that case was pending at the time the Article was published. 6. 5. Appellants argue that Wamstad is a public figure, and thus he has the burden to show that each Defendant-Appellant published the Statements attributable to him or her with actual malice. Accordingly, we reverse and render judgment for all Appellants. Steaks Unlimited, Inc. v. Deaner, 623 F.2d 264, 273 (3d Cir. Limited-purpose public figures are only public figures for a limited range of issues surrounding a particular public controversy. For example, in the fall of 1989, the Dallas press carried at least four articles discussing the business-turned-legal dispute between Wamstad and Mike Piper, his former attorney, after Piper acquired a Del Frisco's restaurant from Wamstad. While that may well raise a fact question whether Rumore did indeed act in self-defense, it is not probative of Rumore's subjective attitude toward the truth of the Statements she made. As used in the defamation context, actual malice is different from traditional common-law malice; it does not include ill will, spite or evil motive. Prac. If he cannot secure it during the discovery process, he is unlikely to stumble on to it at trial. They have also lived in Richardson, TX and Dallas, TX. It reportedly escalated from there. The case is expected to go to trial this summer. The guy is a warrior of. Wamstad himself perpetuated the public nature of the debate over his contentious relationships through his personal self-promotion in his advertising and his other interactions with the press-with all their attendant ramifications for the opinion-forming, consuming public. Code Ann. Actual Malice and Burdens of Proof on Summary Judgment. Rumore and the Divorce Judge's Pronouncement, As to Rumore, Wamstad relies on additional evidence, including evidence of a polygraph he purportedly passed, refuting Rumore's allegations of abuse. As noted, falsity alone does not raise a fact question on actual malice. Ms. The Dallas Times Herald published two pieces on the dispute, one entitled "Dueling Steak Knives." The record contains numerous advertisements containing pictures of Wamstad's new family and children; many advertisements contain his signature slogan "We're open six evenings. I probably deserve it However, leave Dee Lincoln and Del Frisco's.. out of it. Wamstad's ex-wife, Lena Rumore, describes alleged incidents of Wamstad's physical abuse of her, her shooting of Wamstad in 1985, and the ensuing trial in which she was acquitted based on self-defense. The Article was precisely about that contradiction and thus a continuation of the public discussion of Wamstad's endeavors and disputes. How are you doing?Child 1 (Dale, Jr.): Hi, daddy.Child 2 (Shelby Rose): Hi, daddy.C1: Daddy, why is III Forks called III Forks?Dale: Well, Dale, before Dallas was Dallas, it was a III Forks territory.C1: Daddy, why don't the steaks at III Forks sizzle?Dale: Well, honey, when butter starts to sizzle, it's turning to grease.C2: Oh, my gosh. Dee Lincoln took the reins from Dale Wamstad and kicked up the charm. As used in the defamation context, actual malice is different from traditional common-law malice; it does not include ill will, spite or evil motive. Co. L.P., 19 S.W.3d 413, 420 (Tex.2000). Wamstad's first four categories of evidence, in essence, assert that the Media Defendants were on notice that Rumore's statements were false because Wamstad disagreed with Rumore (he allegedly passed a polygraph test) and a divorce judge disagreed with Rumore's assertion that she acted in self-defense when she shot Wamstad in 1985. He went on to add that Piper was a piece of snot floating in the ocean.. Wamstad said the article, which detailed his relationships with his ex-wife, their son, and some of Wamstad's business associates, harmed his reputation. On May 26, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied Wamstad's attempt to derail his ex-wife's damage suit seeking a portion of the $22.7 million doled out when Lone Star Steak & Saloon purchased Del Frisco's in late 1995. See also Brueggemeyer v. Am. See Tex. III Forks was created in 1998 by restaurateur Dale Wamstad, who'd just left Del Frisco's Double Eagle Steak House. Wamstad countered that Rumore's claims were groundless because she signed a settlement agreement in 1992 that paid her $45,000. P. 166a(c); Casso, 776 S.W.2d at 558 ("could have been readily controverted" does not simply mean movant's proof could have been easily and conveniently rebutted). Casso, 776 S.W.2d at 558. We conclude that the affidavits contain ample evidence of a plausible basis for the Observer's employees to believe in the truth of the Statements as reported in the Article. Doubleday & Co., Inc. v. Rogers, 674 S.W.2d 751, 756 (Tex.1984) (reckless conduct not measured by whether reasonably prudent person would have investigated before publishing; must show defendant entertained serious doubts as to truth of publication, citing St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 731, 733, 88 S.Ct. Id. When Ms. Rumore discovered the sale and compared the $45,000.00 she received for her half interest in the community, which included the Del Frisco's Steakhouse businesses, with the $22.7 million dollar sale price, allegedly received by Mr. Wamstad from Lone Star, she filed suit alleging fraud. "To determine whether a controversy existed, and, if so, to define its contours, the judge must examine whether persons actually were discussing some specific question." from 10 a.m.-2 p.m. 972-664-9975 (Texas restaurant) RELATED STORIES P. 166a(c); Casso, 776 S.W.2d at 558 (could have been readily controverted does not simply mean movant's proof could have been easily and conveniently rebutted). That is, the judge's disagreement with Rumore's assertion of self-defense does not raise a fact question whether Rumore herself believed her Statement that she acted in self-defense was false. (3)the alleged defamation must be germane to the plaintiff's participation in the controversy. I spend Sundays with my family." Wamstad's ex-wife, Lena Rumore, describes alleged incidents of Wamstad's physical abuse of her, her shooting of Wamstad in 1985, and the ensuing trial in which she was acquitted based on self-defense. One article in the New Orleans Times-Picayune, entitled Wounded husband called a raging bull, quoted testimony from the trial of at least three witnesses who described instances they witnessed of Wamstad's physical abuse of Rumore before the shooting. The lawsuit was eventually settled. . FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. Julie Lyons stated the following in her affidavit: She was aware of the numerous sources for the Article, including court documents and sworn court testimony. . r. Civ. Accordingly, Wamstad has failed to controvert the Media Defendants' negation of actual malice. Apparently incensed at the steak-house . Id. The articles quote Wamstad's advertisement, directed at Chamberlain: "If you, your investors and the food critics want to slam III Forks, I can live with that. Julie Lyons stated the following in her affidavit: She was aware of the numerous sources for the Article, including court documents and sworn court testimony. He discussed the extensive interviews, media reports, court documents and transcripts Stuertz used and the level of corroboration among the sources. Lyons testified on deposition that Williams commented to her that the draft article was "libelous as hell, but it won't be when I'm through with it." The record includes the following radio advertisement for III Forks, featuring his children from his current marriage, with Wamstad making reference to his wife Colleen: The press reported on a number of Wamstad's business disputes, particularly those with a personal edge to them. In sum, we conclude that Wamstad has failed to raise a fact question on actual malice. at 573-74 (quoting New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279-80). Wamstad is a classic case of a shrewd business guy from out of town who got under the skin of corrupt local public servants. Wamstad sued Fertel for defamation, and Fertel countersued for false advertising and unfair competition. Prac. To maintain a defamation cause of action, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant (1) published a statement (2) that was defamatory concerning the plaintiff (3) while acting with either actual malice, if the plaintiff was a public figure, or negligence, if the plaintiff was a private individual, regarding the truth of the statement. 5 Times The Dallas Stars Went for the Gut While Trolling Opponents, Spoon + Fork: A Standard Name for a Not-So-Standard Restaurant, Chai Wallah in Plano Serves 9 Different Types of Chai, Toast to Mom: Where to Celebrate Mothers Day in Style, Mister O1 Pizza Opening Second Location in Grapevine, In Which Some Visitors From Paris Take a Food Tour of North Texas. Wamstad argues that because the Individual Defendants' credibility is at issue, summary judgment is inappropriate, relying on Casso. Id. Now he knows enough about those events to damage just about any top official's reputation. Restaurateur Dale Wamstad has sold the 83,000-square-foot retail and office development in Richardson to a local group formed by Huey Investments and Standridge Companies. As to Rumore, Wamstad relies on additional evidence, including evidence of a polygraph he purportedly passed, refuting Rumore's allegations of abuse. The judge ruled that she had acted in self-defense. By publishing your views you invite public criticism and rebuttal; you enter voluntarily into one of the submarkets of ideas and opinions and consent therefore to the rough competition in the marketplace. Id. One of the most important lessons that they, as parents, have instilled in their daughters, Dale and Shelby Rose, and son, Dane, is that true happiness and fulfillment in their lives comes from three places: the satisfaction of working hard and reaping the fruits of labor, the . Wamstad asserts six categories of evidence that he contends controvert the Media Defendants' denial of actual malice: (1) the Media Defendants were on notice that Rumore's credibility was questioned by the divorce judge, who questioned her allegations of Wamstad's abuse and her claim that she shot Wamstad in self-defense; (2) in recounting her tale of life with Wamstad, Rumore stated sometimes I'm not sure what is a dream and what is real, but nonetheless, Stuertz admitted Rumore was his main source for the article; (3) the Observer was aware before it published the Article that Wamstad had passed a polygraph examination that contradicted Rumore's allegations of abuse; (4) Stuertz admitted he questioned the logic of Rumore's remarrying Wamstad despite her allegations of previous abuse; (5) Wamstad's media expert testified that the Observer's investigation was grossly inadequate; and (6) on deposition, editor Lyons testified that managing editor Williams stated the Article was libelous as hell, but it won't be when I'm through with it, and Williams testified he had no further personal involvement with the Article after that conversation. She also describes her subsequent divorce from Wamstad in 1987 and her post-divorce suit against Wamstad in 1995, alleging that he defrauded her with respect to her earlier community-property settlement. WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex.1998). at 1271. Thus, the issue of credibility does not preclude summary judgment on the issue of actual malice. Once the defendant has produced evidence negating actual malice as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to present controverting proof raising a genuine issue of material fact. Wamstad also points to the divorce court's judgment granting Wamstad a separation from Rumore on the grounds of attempted murder. See Howell v. Hecht, 821 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, writ denied) (concluding similar language negated actual malice). Indulging all inferences in Wamstad's favor, nonetheless, the Statements in the Article were not inherently improbable or based on obviously dubious information. Three employees of the Observer-reporter Mark Stuertz, managing editor Patrick Williams, and editor Julie Lyons-each submitted an affidavit denying actual malice. Philanthropy . Bob Sambol bought the place from Wamstad and turned it into Bob's Steak & Chophouse in 1994. 3. Huckabee, 19 S.W.3d at 424. Thus, that Wamstad and the divorce judge disagreed with Rumore's allegations is not evidence that the Media Defendants subjectively believed that Rumore's Statements, as they appeared in the Article, were false or that they entertained serious doubts about their truth. Wamstad reproduced the list in his advertising, particularly in airline magazines, reportedly with great success. We disagree. Our review of the record shows that after Williams was deposed, he testified by affidavit, stating that he went over at least two drafts of the Article with Stuertz, who answered all of his questions, and that the Article went through the standard, detailed process for editing and revision. Dale Wamstad to open breakfast and lunch spot in Richardson - impact Although actual malice focuses on the defendant's state of mind, a plaintiff can prove it through objective evidence about the publication's circumstances. Certain Defendant-Appellants filed no-evidence motions for summary judgment under rule 166a(i), which we need not address because we dispose of all issues based on Defendants' traditional motions for summary judgment under rule 166a(c). Roy Wamstad describes specific incidents in which he asserts his father physically and emotionally abused him. Wamstad opened III Forks in August 1998 and sold it in July 2000. Rumore contends Del Frisco's sale to publicly traded Lone Star unleashed the public filing of records with the Securities and Exchange Commission, revealing the true value and ownership structure of the Del Frisco's steak empire. She alleged Wamstad had defrauded her with respect to her earlier property settlement, in 1992, for $45,000. In Wilson, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's determination that the libel plaintiff adduced "insufficient evidence of malice." For example, at the time of the dispute with Piper, the Dallas press reported that Wamstad ran an advertisement stating, "I've done some stupid things in my life, but selling my steakhouse to my attorney has to top the list" and another one in which he accused Piper of running a "clone" restaurant. He stated that he had no knowledge that the Article or any statements in it were false at the time the Article was published, and at no time did he entertain any doubts as to the truth of the statements made in the Article. Broad. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Dale Wamstad Philanthropy In deciding whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, we take evidence favorable to the non-movant as true; we indulge every reasonable inference, and resolve any doubt, in favor of the non-movant. at 558-59. The article recounted stories of Wamstad's physical and emotional abuse of family members and his numerous disputes with business partners. Del Frisco's Double Eagle Steakhouse was founded in 1980 and III Forks in 1998. That Court noted the mere fact that a libel defendant knows that the libel plaintiff denies an allegation is not evidence that the defendant doubted the allegation. In context, the import of the statement in Casso is that, as to actual malice, the issue of credibility does not preclude summary judgment: Casso, 776 S.W.2d at 558. While that may well raise a fact question whether Rumore did indeed act in self-defense, it is not probative of Rumore's subjective attitude toward the truth of the Statements she made. "Limited-purpose" public figures are only public figures for a limited range of issues surrounding a particular public controversy. Whether Wamstad's investment pays off remains . Affidavits from interested witnesses will negate actual malice as a matter of law only if they are "clear, positive, and direct, otherwise credible and free from contradictions and inconsistencies, and could have been readily controverted." Wamstad argues that at most only personal disputes are involved, that there is no public controversy in the sense that the public is affected by these disputes in any real way. Fertel's lawyer asserted he got Wamstad to admit to his connection with, and payments to, the publicist who created the list. Id. Id. See Casso, 776 S.W.2d at 555. He had no knowledge that the Article or any statements in it were false and at no time did he entertain any doubts as to the truth of the statements in the Article. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964)). Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. In actual-malice cases, such affidavits must establish the defendant's belief in the challenged statements' truth and provide a plausible basis for this belief. The Dallas Times Herald published two pieces on the dispute, one entitled Dueling Steak Knives. The Dallas Morning News also covered the story, quoting Piper's and Wamstad's personal comments about each other.6, In 1995, Wamstad's business and personal reputation gained national press attention when he sued Ruth Fertel for defamation over her suggestion that Wamstad was behind the Top-Ten List. The evidence includes an Associated Press article, from November 1994, that chronicled the long-standing personal rivalry between Fertel and Wamstad7 and also reported Fertel's allegation that Wamstad was behind the supposedly independent Top-Ten rating. local news and culture. Patrick Williams stated the following in his affidavit: He had editorial responsibility for Stuertz's article, and he found Stuertz a most accurate reporter. Id. She had no knowledge at any time that the Article or any statements in it were false and did not at any time entertain doubts as to the truth of the statements. at 1271. "I love luxury brands," she said Friday after. The continuing press coverage over the years showed that the public was indeed interested in Wamstad's personal behavior in both the family and business context. Texas Monthly and at least one trade magazine covered the suit with Fertel, as did ABC World News Tonight. Get the latest updates in news, food, music and culture, and receive special offers direct to your inbox. The failure to investigate has been held insufficient to establish actual malice. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order insofar as it denies their motions for summary judgment and render judgment in favor of all Appellants. Dale Wamstad sells - Richardson Chamber of Commerce | Facebook NEW TIMES, INC. d/b/a Dallas Observer; Mark Stuertz; Lena Rumore Waddell, Lou Saba; and Jack Sands, Appellants, v. Dale F. WAMSTAD, Appellee. Thereafter, Wamstad married again, and began operating Del Frisco's restaurants in Dallas. In addition, a reporter may rely on statements by a single source, even though they reflect only one side of the story, without manifesting a reckless disregard for the truth. Id. Emmerdale star Dale Meeks dies age 47 as tributes pour in for actor Six different former business associates, including Lou Saba and Jack Sands, recount their view of their business dealings with Wamstad and how they came to feel that Wamstad took advantage of them.3 The Article also describes Wamstad's litigation with his long-time rival Ruth Fertel, of Ruth's Chris Steakhouse. Id., (citing Trotter v. Jack Anderson Enters., Inc., 818 F.2d 431, 433 (5th Cir.1987)). For controverting evidence, Wamstad relies principally on his affidavit and deposition testimony denying the truth of the Statements made by, or attributed to, the Individual Defendants. Id. We are not persuaded that Wilson should apply here. "`By publishing your views you invite public criticism and rebuttal; you enter voluntarily into one of the submarkets of ideas and opinions and consent therefore to the rough competition in the marketplace.'" Several inquiries are relevant in examining the libel plaintiff's role in the controversy: (1) whether the plaintiff sought publicity surrounding the controversy, (2) whether the plaintiff had access to the media, and (3) whether the plaintiff voluntarily engaged in activities that necessarily involved the risk of increased exposure and injury to reputation. Id. ", In 1998, the Dallas press covered the run-up to, and opening of, Wamstad's III Forks restaurant. In actual-malice cases, such affidavits must establish the defendant's belief in the challenged statements' truth and provide a plausible basis for this belief. Rumore filed suit following the sale, claiming she was duped out of her share of the proceeds generated by the restaurant they founded and then developed in New Orleans in the early 1980s. The Dallas North Beefway - D Magazine Wamstad argues that at most only personal disputes are involved, that there is no public controversy in the sense that the public is affected by these disputes in any real way. Texas Monthly and at least one trade magazine covered the suit with Fertel, as did ABC World News Tonight. Id. It is not enough for the jury to disbelieve the libel defendant's testimony. To determine whether a controversy existed, and, if so, to define its contours, the judge must examine whether persons actually were discussing some specific question. Id. Alan S. Loewinsohn, Loewinshn Flegle, L.L.P., Dallas, for appellee. And the evidence shows that Wamstad used his access to the media to comment on his rivals and his business disputes. Fertel's lawyer asserted he got Wamstad to admit to his connection with, and payments to, the publicist who created the list. Certain Defendant-Appellants filed no-evidence motions for summary judgment under rule 166a(i), which we need not address because we dispose of all issues based on Defendants' traditional motions for summary judgment under rule 166a(c).
Tony Fields Actor Death, Articles D