4D07-972-Straub v. Lehtinen, Vargas & Riedi, P.A.

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Fourth District Court » 2007 » 4D07-972-Straub v. Lehtinen, Vargas & Riedi, P.A.

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fourth District Court

Docket No: 4D07-972

Case Date: 12/19/2007

Preview:DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
July Term 2007

GLENN F. STRAUB, Appellant, v. LEHTINEN, VARGAS & RIEDI, P.A. and CLAUDIO RIEDI, ESQ., Appellees. No. 4D07-972 [December 19, 2007] MAY, J. The plaintiff appeals a final order dismissing with prejudice his second amended complaint for false light invasion of privacy. He argues the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint because it contained sufficient allegations to state a cause of action. We agree and reverse. After twice amending his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he was damaged by the defendants' knowing and malicious release of a "Press Advisory" to at least five news organizations. According to the allegations, the "Press Advisory" contained false, erroneous, and misleading statements about the plaintiff regarding recently concluded litigation. The headline of the advisory read "South Carolina Bankruptcy Court Rules Against Glenn Straub." The second amended complaint alleged that despite the fact that the bankruptcy court had not entered a personal judgment or mandate against the plaintiff, the "Press Advisory" implied that he, Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc., and related entities were parties to the litigation and subject to the bankruptcy court's order. The plaintiff alleged the statements were false because neither he nor Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. was a party to the litigation and because he did not own shares of stock in either Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc, or Palm Beach Polo, Inc. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The motion argued that because the "Press Advisory" did not contain any false private facts or any substantially or materially false or offensive statements, they were not actionable. The

motion further asserted that the defendants had not acted knowingly or in reckless disregard of the falsity of the statements. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. We review orders on motions to dismiss de novo. Siegle v. Progressive Consumers Ins. Co., 819 So. 2d 732, 734 (Fla. 2002). A motion to dismiss admits all well-pled facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Ingalsbe v. Stewart Agency, Inc., 869 So. 2d 30, 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). A claim for false light invasion of privacy involves the publication of facts which place a person in a false light even though the facts themselves may not be defamatory. Rapp v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 944 So. 2d 460, 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ginsberg, 863 So. 2d 156, 162 (Fla. 2003)). It is one of four recognized claims in the area of invasion of privacy. Id. A person is liable when he or she publicizes a matter involving another in a false light where it would be highly offensive to the reasonable person. Id. at 467

Download 4D07-972-Straub v. Lehtinen, Vargas & Riedi, P.A..pdf