Ryan v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.
2012 IL App (1st) 120005 · Appellate Court of Illinois · 2012
Facts
WFLD Fox News Chicago, in collaboration with the Better Government Association, Inc., aired an investigative report starting May 24, 2010, on the working hours of Cook County circuit court judges. The report suggested that some judges, including plaintiff James Ryan, were neglecting their official duties by leaving courthouses well before the end of the business day. The report specifically stated that Ryan was "caught leaving the courthouse early three times" and was "home by 1:18 p.m." on a rainy October day, accompanied by images of a car in a driveway. This report prompted an inquiry from the supreme court and led the chief judge of the circuit court to discipline the involved judges by transferring them to other duties. During the second installment of the report, WFLD anchor Robin Robinson issued a correction, stating that the house and car shown for Ryan actually belonged to a neighbor, and while they saw him leave work early, they did not know where he went.
Procedural history
Plaintiff James Ryan filed an original complaint alleging defamation on May 27, 2010. Defendants moved to dismiss under the Citizen Participation Act, which the circuit court denied. Defendants' subsequent petitions for leave to appeal were denied. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, adding counts for false-light invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intrusion upon seclusion. Defendants again moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing immunity under the Act, and the circuit court denied this portion of their motion. Defendants then petitioned for leave to appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(9), which was granted, bringing the case to this appellate court.
Issue
Did the defendants meet their burden of establishing that the plaintiff's complaint, alleging defamation, false-light invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intrusion upon seclusion, was a meritless, retaliatory Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) and thus barred under the Citizen Participation Act?
Holding
The court affirmed the circuit court's denial of the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the defendants failed to sustain their burden of establishing that the complaint was barred by the Citizen Participation Act.
Rule
The Citizen Participation Act (SLAPP Act) aims to protect public participation in government by providing for dismissal of meritless, retaliatory lawsuits. To dismiss a lawsuit under the Act, the movant must demonstrate that the nonmovant's claim is a meritless, retaliatory SLAPP. This requires showing: (1) the defendants' acts were in furtherance of their right to petition, speak, associate, or participate in government; (2) the plaintiffs' claims are solely based on these protected acts; and (3) the plaintiffs fail to produce clear and convincing evidence that the defendants' acts were not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action. A claim is "meritless" if there are undisputed facts demonstrating its lack of merit, not merely if it fails to state a legal claim under section 2-615.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.