Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Biggy
read thru the original complaint filed and posted on every major adult news site. many things were said about nats in those complaints which carry a much bigger case for a defamation suit against NR media, imo a much stronger case than what they have relative to TMM.
in the original nats statement, they didnt say anything false. it was nothing more than a set of facts. if NR wants to sue someone, they should be suing the people/posters they cited in their complaint who made the assumption they were shaving and said it literally. john and crew are going to have their way with them imo, if i was NR media, i would drop everything immediately and not listen to lawyers who have a vested interest in telling them to sue, especially adult industry lawyers who operate on the business side.
|
Nice try, but............
CHARLES L. THOMASON, Plaintiff, v. NORMAN E. LEHRER, P.C., and NORMAN E. LEHRER, Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-2336
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
183 F.R.D. 161; 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19320
October 27, 1998, Decided
???.
B. The Litigation Privilege Under New Jersey Law
HN10 New Jersey has recognized the litigation privilege as "the backbone to an effective and smoothly operating judicial system." Peterson v. Ballard, 292 N.J. Super. 575, 582, 679 A.2d 657 (App. Div. 1996) (quoting Hawkins v. Harris, 141 N.J. 207, 222, 661 A.2d 284 (1994) (citing Silberg v. Anderson, 50 Cal. 3d 205, 786 P.2d 365, 370, 266 Cal. Rptr. 638 (Cal. 1990))). The litigation privilege is "firmly established in New Jersey case law." Peterson, 292 N.J. [**15] Super. at 581 (citing Hawkins, 141 N.J. at 215). The privilege protects, as absolutely immune from liability, statements by attorneys made in the course of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. See Peterson, 292 N.J. Super. at 581 (citing Erickson v. Marsh & McLennan Co., Inc., 117 N.J. 539, 563, 569 A.2d 793 (1990)).
HN11 Originally applied in defamation cases see Peterson, 292 N.J. Super. at 581-82, the litigation privilege has been expanded to encompass both common-law and statutory causes of action for tortious conduct. See Peterson, 292 N.J. Super. 575, 679 A.2d 657 (applying litigation privilege to bar plaintiff's claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J. Stat. Ann. 10:5-12d, and claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress); see also Rainier's Dairies v. Raritan Valley Farms, Inc., 19 N.J. 552, 117 A.2d 889 (1955) (applying litigation to bar claim for malicious interference with a business); Ruberton v. Gabage, 280 N.J. Super. 125, 133-34, 654 A.2d 1002 (App. Div. 1995) (applying privilege to claim for malicious interference); Middlesex Concrete Products & Excavating Corp v. Carteret Industries Ass'n, 68 N.J. Super. 85, [**16] 172 A.2d 22 (Ap.. Div. 1961) (applying litigation privilege to bar tortious interference claim); accord Lapat v. Serber, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11789, Civ. Action No. 95-1021, 1995 WL 481493, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 1, 1995).
HN12 The New Jersey Supreme Court has determined that the policy underlying application of the litigation privilege to defamation actions applies with equal force to other claims of tortious conduct based upon statements made during judicial proceedings. See Peterson, 292 N.J. Super. at 582 (citing Rainier's Dairies, 19 N.J. at 564; Ruberton, 280 N.J. Super. at 133-34). That Court has written:
If the policy, which in defamation actions affords an absolute privilege or immunity to statements made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings is really to mean anything then we must not permit its circumvention by affording an almost equally unrestricted action under a different label.
Rainier's Dairies, 19 N.J. at 564; accord Ruberton, 280 N.J. Super. at 133-34.
[*167] HN13 Consistent with all absolute privileges, the litigation privilege protects "the bad as well as the good." Peterson, 292 N.J. Super. at 590 (citing Hawkins, 141 N.J. at 213). "The supervening public policy [**17] that persons [engaged in litigation] . . . be allowed to speak and write freely without the restraint or fear of an ensuing action[,]" warrants the protection of the occasional tortious statement. Peterson, 292 N.J. Super. at 590 (citing Hawkins, 141 N.J. at 214).