Finally, Wamstad argues he raises a fact question on actual malice based on deposition testimony of Williams and Lyons. In 1980, with a newfound drive and outlook on life, he founded Del Frisco's Double Eagle Steakhouse and sold it in 1995 for . A failure to investigate fully is not evidence of actual malice; a purposeful avoidance of the truth is. When It's Top-10-Steakhouse List, The Knives Are Out - The Seattle Times Rumore filed the suit shortly after Wamstad sold his interest in Del Frisco's restaurants for nearly $23 million. Rem. 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. at 573-74 (quoting New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279-80). III Forks was created in 1998 by restaurateur Dale Wamstad, who'd just left Del Frisco's Double Eagle Steak House. Stuertz states in his affidavit that he had arranged an interview with Wamstad, but Wamstad later canceled it on advice of his attorney. 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. They have also lived in Richardson, TX and Dallas, TX. 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. The Article also describes numerous disputes former business partners had with Wamstad, many of which resulted in lawsuits. 683 S.W.2d 369, 374-75 (Tex. Actual Malice and Burdens of Proof on Summary Judgment. Wamstad had not reacted to the advertisement before. Thus, the issue of credibility does not preclude summary judgment on the issue of actual malice. The Article was precisely about that contradiction and thus a continuation of the public discussion of Wamstad's endeavors and disputes. NEW TIMES, INC. d/b/a Dallas Observer; Mark Stuertz; Lena Rumore Waddell, Lou Saba; and Jack Sands, Appellants, v. Dale F. WAMSTAD, Appellee. Apparently incensed at the steak-house . 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). Co. L.P., 19 S.W.3d 413, 420 (Tex.2000). Prop. The failure to investigate has been held insufficient to establish actual malice. r. Civ. Texas Monthly and at least one trade magazine covered the suit with Fertel, as did ABC World News Tonight. 30 Years of Dining in Dallas - D Magazine That the Media Defendants published her Statements anyway, his argument goes, is evidence of actual malice. The divorce judge held that Rumore did not act in self-defense when shooting Wamstad, basing his decision on discrepancies in Mrs. Wamstad's testimony, her overall lack of credibility and the Court's actual inspection of the premises. We reject this argument, just as the court in Huckabee did. See Gertz, 418 U.S. at 346, 94 S.Ct. (Dale Wamstad, the Texas restaurateur who was running the place, was the topic of a lengthy article in the Dallas Observerin 2000 that detailed his past lawsuits, "bitter business partners,". at 1271. at 558-59. 2997. The restaurant is the latest culinary project by restaurateur Dale Wamstad. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 573 (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 283 (1964)). (citing Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 351 (1974)). McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 573 (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 283, 84 S.Ct. Each Defendant filed a traditional motion for summary judgment under rule 166a(c) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The Texas Supreme Court has recently addressed the issue of what type of evidence is probative of actual malice in a case involving media defendants. from 10 a.m.-2 p.m. 972-664-9975 (Texas restaurant) RELATED STORIES "General-purpose" public figures are those individuals who have achieved such pervasive fame or notoriety that they become public figures for all purposes and in all contexts. The record evidence shows that around the time Rumore was tried for shooting Wamstad, in 1986, he began to receive considerable press attention concerning his domestic life. Casso v. Brand, 776 S.W.2d 551, 558 (Tex. Having negated an essential element of Wamstad's cause of action, Defendant-Appellants are entitled to summary judgment. The articles quoted Piper as saying he got involved with Wamstad in 1985 "when Dale's wife shot him" and states that Piper showed the reporter the 1986 "raging bull" article from the Times-Picayune. In an extensive affidavit, Stuertz stated the following, among other things: In researching for the Article, he interviewed at least nineteen people, reviewed numerous court documents (listing fifty-seven documents), court transcripts, and numerous newspaper articles concerning Wamstad (listing forty-eight newspaper articles). WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex. Huckabee, 19 S.W.3d at 424. She created the high-end wine, martini and champagne lounge with the Cowboys, Legends Hospitality Management and her brother, Ricky Comardelle. Code Ann. It also includes favorable statements about Wamstad made by his current father-in-law. We certainly agree that the public debate in this case does not involve matters of great moment in current public life. Code Ann. Co. L.P., 19 S.W.3d 413, 420 (Tex. 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. Id. 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. Furthermore, that Rumore confessed to confusion about past events, and that Stuertz thought her remarrying Wamstad was not logical, are not probative of whether Stuertz believed the Statements, as they appeared in the Article, were false. See Huckabee, 19 S.W.3d at 428-29 (extensive legal review with editorial rewrites not evidence of actual malice). Moreover, even assuming Wamstad's expert's testimony is admissible, the opinion on the Media Defendant's alleged failure to investigate speaks, rather, to an alleged disregard of a standard of objectivity. Get the latest updates in news, food, music and culture, and receive special offers direct to your inbox. In 1986, she and partner Dale Wamstad moved Del Frisco's to Dallas where it later mushroomed with success when it was bought by Lone Star Steakhouse and Saloon in 1995. 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. Accordingly, this is not a case where a defamation plaintiff was thrust into the public eye and involuntarily remained there. 5251 Spring Valley Rd. After Wamstad recovered from his wounds, he came back to the restaurant, which his wife had been running in his absence, and threw everybody out, including Roy. Join the Observer community and help support So Wamstad took the beef to the state's highest court. Id., quoted approvingly in McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 572. Ecotricity founder Dale Vince, who is bankrolling the climate activist group, has also given . Turner, 38 S.W.3d at 120. However, leave Dee Lincoln and Del Frisco's . Each Defendant filed a traditional motion for summary judgment under rule 166a(c) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.4 Tex.R. Dale Wamstad Biography Finally, Wamstad argues he raises a fact question on actual malice based on deposition testimony of Williams and Lyons. ." Although at trial the libel plaintiff must establish actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, at the summary judgment stage the court applies the traditional summary-judgment jurisprudence in testing whether the evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact. Trial in that case was pending at the time the Article was published. Id. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. at 1271. 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. TX Court of Appeals Opinions and Cases | FindLaw 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 record refers to Wamstad's involvement in at least ten restaurants since 1977 and contains court documents concerning legal disputes over at least four different restaurants, involving four different former associates. 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. Fertel suggested, in a newsletter to her customers, that the Top-Ten List was a front for Del Frisco's. We conclude the Individual Defendants' affidavits negated actual malice. We reject this argument, just as the court in Huckabee did. Wamstad also points to the divorce court's judgment granting Wamstad a separation from Rumore on the grounds of attempted murder. She alleged Wamstad had defrauded her with respect to her earlier property settlement, in 1992, for $45,000. Doubleday Co., Inc. v. Rogers, 674 S.W.2d 751, 756 (Tex. . Wamstad relies on Leyendecker & Assocs. See Bentley, 94 S.W.3d at 596. 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. 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. Id. 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. Gertz, 418 U.S. at 345. independent local journalism in Dallas. The Shire has new ownership. 1966). Id. Once the defendant establishes its right to summary judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact, thereby precluding summary judgment. If he cannot secure it during the discovery process, he is unlikely to stumble on to it at trial. Casso, 776 S.W.2d at 558. Public figures have "assumed the risk of potentially unfair criticism by entering into the public arena and engaging the public's attention." 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. When asked shortly thereafter about the comment, she stated she thought the statement was partly in jest and partly reflected that he was still working on the story.. 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. She alleged Wamstad had defrauded her with respect to her earlier property settlement, in 1992, for $45,000. 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." Anything else you'd like to say?C1: I love you, Mom and Dane.C2: I love you, Mommy and Dane.C1: I love you, Nanny.C2: I love you, Nanny.Dale: And to Colleen (music and lyrics) it's a sin, my darling, how I love you. Wamstad responded that Piper was treacherous and mean-spirited for raising the shooting, adding that the shooting was all behind him, that he had remarried and had a wife and two beautiful kids. Co-Founder Dee Lincoln Resigns From Nationally Renowned Del Frisco's 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"). 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. Accordingly, we reverse and render judgment for all Appellants. In its edition dated March 16-22, 2000, the Dallas Observer published an article ("the Article") about Dale Wamstad, entitled, "Family Man," with the caption on the cover stating, "Dallas Restaurateur Dale Wamstad portrays himself as humble entrepreneur and devoted father. 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. A public-figure libel plaintiff must prove the defendant acted with actual malice in allegedly defaming him. "When the ink was dry on the partition agreement, [Wamstad] began to unravel the web for his own purposes, so that he could reap all of the benefits from selling the very business Ms. Rumore and the community capital had helped to create," say court documents filed on behalf of Rumore. Hash Over | Restaurants | Dallas | Dallas Observer | The Leading When Piper moved his restaurant, Wamstad reopened a Del Frisco's in the original location. Having invited public rebuttal concerning his persona, Wamstad took on the status of a limited public figure with respect to his behavior in business and family matters. Whether a party is a public figure is a question of constitutional law for courts to decide. About TEXAS: Beef Fish Fowl 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. During the Top-Ten List litigation, Wamstad referred in radio advertisements as having been accused by a New York public relations person (whom he had named as a defendant) as being diabolically clever and successful.. Dale Wamstad opens breakfast, lunch spot Rooster Town Wafflery 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. Dale Wamstad's new restaurant Two for the Money BBQ opens in Richardson The family he abandoned in New Orleans has a bone to pick with that." Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex.1985). The record contains numerous references to Wamstad throughout the 1990s, many appearing in the restaurant critic columns, which make frequent references to Wamstad personally. The case is expected to go to trial in January. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 6. 73.001 (Vernon 1997).WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex., Full title:NEW TIMES, INC. D/B/A DALLAS OBSERVER; MARK STUERTZ; LENA RUMORE WADDELL, Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas, stating that a reporter may rely on statements by a single source even though they reflect only one side of the story without showing a reckless disregard for the truth. Id. It reportedly escalated from there. (quoting St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968)). Imagining that something may be true is not the same as belief. He went on to add that Piper was a piece of snot floating in the ocean.. Family man | News | Dallas | Dallas Observer | The Leading Independent v. Wechter for the proposition that, when the truth or falsity of a statement is within the particular purview of the defamation defendant, then falsity is probative of malice. "Actual malice is a term of art, focusing on the defamation defendant's attitude toward the truth of what it reported." Thereafter, Wamstad married again, and began operating Del Frisco's restaurants in Dallas. Wamstad sued New Times, Inc. d/b/a Dallas Observer (the Observer) and Mark Stuertz, the reporter (collectively, Media Defendants). Wamstad's reliance on Wilson v. UT Health Center is also misplaced. The case is expected to go to trial this summer. Dracos, 92 S.W.2d at 255. Meet the 'Queen of Steaks' who runs one of Frisco's highest grossing Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. Thus, the issue of credibility does not preclude summary judgment on the issue of actual malice. P. 166a(c). Wamstad reportedly bristled at that characterization of the truth, claiming, Twenty-three million dollars is truth.. 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. I spend Sundays with my family. After he sold his interest in Del Frisco's, Wamstad continued to use his family values to promote his new restaurant, III Forks, which he opened in 1998.5, The press reported on a number of Wamstad's business disputes, particularly those with a personal edge to them. Id. Patrick Williams stated the following in his affidavit: He had editorial responsibility for Stuertz's article, and he found Stuertz a most accurate reporter. See Brueggemeyer, 684 F.Supp. 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. We conclude that Wamstad's summary judgment evidence, in essence, merely asserts falsity of the Individual Defendants' Statements but does not otherwise raise specific, affirmative proof to controvert the Individual Defendants' affidavits negating actual malice. 2003). New in Restaurants: Dale Wamstad's Lost Lady Cantina Wamstad asserts he does not meet the public-figure test, because there is no "public controversy." 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. Independent evidence is required: While it is conceivable that a defendant's trial testimony, under the rigors of cross-examination, could provide the requisite proof, it is more likely that plaintiff will have to secure that evidence elsewhere. 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. It is not probative of the Media Defendants' conscious awareness of falsity or whether they subjectively entertained serious doubt as to the truth or falsity of the Statements as reported in the Article. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. See Brueggemeyer, 684 F. Supp. It is not probative of the Media Defendants' conscious awareness of falsity or whether they subjectively entertained serious doubt as to the truth or falsity of the Statements as reported in the Article. 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. 5. We conclude that evidence is merely cumulative of Wamstad's testimony asserting Rumore's allegations are false. Wamstad argues this deposition testimony controverts Williams' affidavit testimony that directly negates actual malice. Make a one-time donation today for as little as $1. Id. She's a great lady. The contours of the controversy requirement are at least partly defined by the notion that public-figure status attaches to those who invite attention and comment because they have thrust themselves to the forefront of a public controversy to influence the resolution of the issue involved. Gertz, 418 U.S. at 345, 94 S.Ct. Even if Williams was not joking when he stated the draft article was libelous as written, it is irrelevant whether Williams himself or someone else edited the Article before publication; Williams unequivocally testifies in his affidavit that the Article as published did not contain statements he believed were false or about which he entertained doubts. The Casso court went on to explain that the plaintiff must offer, at trial, clear and convincing affirmative proof of actual malice. Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 548-49. Cos., 684 F.Supp. The second best result is Dale Tervooren age 30s in McKinney, TX in the Eldorado neighborhood. The standards for reviewing summary judgment under rule 166a(c) are well established. Roy Wamstad describes specific incidents in which he asserts his father physically and emotionally abused him. Wamstad also sued Rumore, Saba, and Sands (collectively, "Individual Defendants"). Please try again. See Tex. The AP article quoted Fertel as telling Rumore after the shooting that if she fired that many shots at Wamstad and didn't get him, Fertel was going to have to give Rumore shooting lessons. Now he knows enough about those events to damage just about any top official's reputation. We disagree. Become a member to support the independent voice of Dallas In the mid-1990s, the press began referring to Wamstad as "flamboyant" and "controversial." In 1996, the Dallas press noted that Wamstad was "known for getting embroiled in legal battles with former business partners and rival steakhouse chains." Fertel's lawyer asserted he got Wamstad to admit to his connection with, and payments to, the publicist who created the list. at 455 (ongoing alleged bait and switch sales practices); and McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 569 (why government raid failed). Wamstad reportedly "bristled" at that characterization of the "truth," claiming, "Twenty-three million dollars is truth. 1992). As noted, falsity alone does not raise a fact question on actual malice. 1979). Id. Wamstad reproduced the list in his advertising, particularly in airline magazines, reportedly with great success. A few months after Svalesen resigned from the restaurant in June 1999, Upright slapped him with a lawsuit demanding the return of his shares in the restaurant's parent company, Pescado Inc., because he failed to purchase them with cash. Most, if not all of the statements about Wamstad in the Article were corroborated, either by prior sworn court testimony or by other witnesses, and based on the similarity of assertions made by the sources, he did not doubt the credibility of any of his sources, including Rumore and Roy Wamstad. Nixon v. Mr. The email address cannot be subscribed. 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. The Rooster Town Cafe will serve breakfast and lunch seven days a week. The article also stated that son Roy Wamstad recounted at least eleven separate instances in which he asserted Wamstad physically abused him and his mother. TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. In essence, he argues that falsity of the Statements is probative of actual malice. Adding more fuel to the feud was Wamstad's then-wife, Lena, who shot Wamstad three times - and missed with two other shots - in their New Orleans restaurant in 1985. 1987)). Within a few years, he went "bust" in the chicken business. Wamstad's role was both central and germane to the controversy about his contentious relationships. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 572-73. Three employees of the Observer-reporter Mark Stuertz, managing editor Patrick Williams, and editor Julie Lyons-each submitted an affidavit denying actual malice. 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. Dale is related to Dale Tervooren and Dane Thomas Wamstad as well as 3 additional people. Dale Wamstad, also known as "Del Frisco," is the sole founder of two iconic, nationally recognized steakhouses. This reliance is misplaced. Steaks Unlimited, Inc. v. Deaner, 623 F.2d 264, 273 (3d Cir. Wamstad's expert witness opined that the Observer's investigation was grossly inadequate given the source bias, lack of pre-dissemination opportunity to respond, [and] lack of deadline pressure. Wamstad argues that this expert testimony-that the Media Defendants failed to investigate adequately-evinces actual malice. Patrick Williams stated the following in his affidavit: He had editorial responsibility for Stuertz's article, and he found Stuertz a most accurate reporter. Updated 1:52 PM Jun 9, 2020 CDT. Limited-purpose public figures are only public figures for a limited range of issues surrounding a particular public controversy. See Huckabee, 19 S.W.3d at 428-29 (extensive legal review with editorial rewrites not evidence of actual malice). Ms. 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. Concerning the first element, a general concern or interest does not constitute a controversy. Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1297. 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." Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 548-49. 2. Chamberlain expressed the view that Wamstad wanted to create some publicity for his new steakhouse and was doing it at the expense of Chamberlain's reputation. Wamstad is a classic case of a shrewd business guy from out of town who got under the skin of corrupt local public servants.

Buckingham Property Management Yuba City, Davidson Middle School Student Death, Canon 90d Sports Photography Settings, Sauders Seneca Falls, Ny Weekly Ad, Articles D