Comments on: “South Carolina Court Awards $1.8 Million Libel Judgment Against Blogger”

By: Commentor

Commentor — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:51:18 +0000

Most courts do not require that a non-movant respond by affidavit or otherwise to defeat a motion for summary judgment. The movant still must meet his burden of persuasion.

There are many judges, however, who would treat a motion as confessed when the non-movant fails to show up for the hearing.

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:52:19 +0000

As far as I can see, calling someone a “failed lawyer” and criticizing an ad campaign do not constitute defamation. Certainly whether a person is a “failed lawyer” is a matter of opinion, not fact. A plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should succeed only if, even construing the facts in the manner most favorable to the defendant, the plaintiff will win. Doesn’t that mean that if the plaintiff has not made a case as a matter of law, in this case failing to allege a false and defamatory factual statement, the court should dismiss the motion for summary judgment sua sponte?

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:59:26 +0000

You really can’t draw any conclusions from a case like this where summary judgment is granted. Suing someone who does not defend the case and getting a “recovery” is pretty easy.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:26:30 +0000

Specifically, according to Citizen Media Law, it was the summary judgment hearing which Wizeman missed. (Wizeman claimed he didn’t receive notice of it.) If he missed the hearing, I assume he also failed to submit an affidavit in opposition to the motion.

Under those circumstances, against a non-appearing defendant, obtaining summary judgment in a defamation or any other case isn’t highly unusual. Perhaps it should be (the rules require that the defendant be given the benefit of any doubt as to the facts), but judges take a dim view of defendants who fail to appear for court.