Huckabee, 19 S.W.3d at 424. Independent evidence is required: Id. 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. Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1297. She's a great lady. . The Dallas Times Herald published two pieces on the dispute, one entitled Dueling Steak Knives. The Dallas Morning News also covered the story, quoting Piper's and Wamstad's personal comments about each other.6, 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. The evidence includes an Associated Press article, from November 1994, that chronicled the long-standing personal rivalry between Fertel and Wamstad7 and also reported Fertel's allegation that Wamstad was behind the supposedly independent Top-Ten rating. Patrick Williams stated the following in his affidavit: He had editorial responsibility for Stuertz's article, and he found Stuertz a most accurate reporter. Bob Cooper--is a little off his T-bone, you may be right. Wamstad reproduced the list in his advertising, particularly in airline magazines, reportedly with great success. In sum, the media coverage of Wamstad over the past 15-plus years has been substantial and considerably focused on Wamstad's personality, with Wamstad himself participating in the media discussion. It is not enough for the jury to disbelieve the libel defendant's testimony. 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. 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. 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.". See Howell v. Hecht, 821 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, writ denied) (concluding similar language negated actual malice). Dale Wamstad Philanthropy Id. Accordingly, we reverse and render judgment for all Appellants. at 573 (citations omitted). The restaurant is the latest culinary project by restaurateur Dale Wamstad. 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. 1966). (When asked to comment for the newspaper articles, Wamstad told one newspaper that the matter is over and refused to return calls to the other. He went on to add that Piper was a piece of snot floating in the ocean.. The family he abandoned in New Orleans has a bone to pick with that." The Four Sisters were trying to stare down Dale. I probably deserve it However, leave Dee Lincoln and Del Frisco's.. out of it. That is, the judge's disagreement with Rumore's assertion of self-defense does not raise a fact question whether Rumore herself believed her Statement that she acted in self-defense was false. at 423. 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. Wamstad asserts he does not meet the public-figure test, because there is no public controversy. He argues that the challenged Statements do not concern the previous controversy over the Top-Ten List and his previous marital difficulties and his participation in business-related litigation are personal disputes and do not constitute a public controversy. The supreme court has adopted the Fifth Circuit's three-part test for a limited-purpose public figure: (1)the controversy at issue must be public both in the sense that people are discussing it and people other than the immediate participants in the controversy are likely to feel the impact of its resolution; (2)the plaintiff must have more than a trivial or tangential role in the controversy; and. Id. Labour has taken 1.5million from a Just Stop Oil-backing green energy boss, it emerged yesterday. Actual Malice and Burdens of Proof on Summary Judgment. The standards for reviewing summary judgment under rule 166a(c) are well established. 2002) (reviewing finding of actual malice for sufficiency, incorporating clear and convincing standard on review). Just My 2 Cents Worth: More to the Dale Wamstad Story - Blogger Wamstad, who founded the Del Frisco's Double Eagle Steakhouse concept in New Orleans in the late 80s then teamed with Dee Lincoln to expand the concept in Dallas, says the new restaurant will be a mix of "true American" cuisines, which . In the mid 70's after 20 years in the insurance business, Dale got into the food industry as an investor with Popeye's Famous Fried Chicken. Casso, 776 S.W.2d at 558. 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. Accordingly, the affidavits negate actual malice and thus shift the burden to Wamstad to produce controverting evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact concerning actual malice. The Court summarized as follows: In a public-figure defamation case, a libel defendant is entitled to summary judgment under rule 166a(c) by negating actual malice as a matter of law. Wamstad argues that because the Individual Defendants' credibility is at issue, summary judgment is inappropriate, relying on Casso. 6. That is, he argues, the Article does not involve the types of controversies found in public-figure cases such as Trotter, 18 F.2d 434-35 (union official assassination and labor violence in foreign country); Brueggemeyer, 684 F. Supp. The record includes the following radio advertisement for III Forks, featuring his children from his current marriage, with Wamstad making reference to his wife Colleen:Dale: Hey kids. "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. Public figures have "assumed the risk of potentially unfair criticism by entering into the public arena and engaging the public's attention." Wamstad had not reacted to the advertisement before. A failure to investigate fully is not evidence of actual malice; a purposeful avoidance of the truth is. Del Frisco's co-founder exits company | Nation's Restaurant News But in determining whether a public controversy exists, we look to whether the public actually is discussing a matter, not whether the content of the discussion is important to public life. The fact that Wamstad denied the abuse and disagreed that his former wife acted in self-defense in shooting him was not evidence that the Observer believed her claims were false and published. Three employees of the Observer-reporter Mark Stuertz, managing editor Patrick Williams, and editor Julie Lyons-each submitted an affidavit denying actual malice. Wamstad asserts Stuertz mentioned Rumore's pending lawsuit to him but did not tell him he planned to cover Wamstad's business dealings as well. Certain Defendant-Appellants filed no-evidence motions for summary judgment under rule 166a(i), which we need not address because we dispose of all issues based on Defendants' traditional motions for summary judgment under rule 166a(c). The family he abandoned in New Orleans has a bone to pick with that. The Article is largely a recounting of various interactions with Wamstad as told by his ex-wife, his first-born son Roy, and some of Wamstad's former business 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. As noted by D Magazine, it was unlike other high-end steakhouses in Dallas, . He had no knowledge indicating that the Article or statements therein were false at the time the Article was published nor did he entertain any doubts as to the truthfulness of any of the matters asserted in the Article. Closed Already: The Lost Lady American Cantina - The Stranger It also includes favorable statements about Wamstad made by his current father-in-law. A lower court agreed with Wamstad, but Rumore won on appeal. Wamstad sued New Times, Inc. d/b/a Dallas Observer (the Observer) and Mark Stuertz, the reporter (collectively, "Media Defendants"). Accordingly, Wamstad has failed to controvert the Media Defendants' negation of actual malice. The Casso court went on to explain that the plaintiff must offer, at trial, clear and convincing affirmative proof of actual malice. 2003). Huckabee v. Time Warner Enter. 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. Wamstad said the article, which detailed his relationships with his ex-wife, their son, and some of Wamstad's business associates, harmed his reputation. Contact us. 1996)). We conclude that Williams' not recalling his next "personal involvement" with the Article does not contradict his later affidavit testimony that the Statements in the Article were not published with actual malice. Wamstad argues that at most only personal disputes are involved, that there is no public controversy in the sense that the public is affected by these disputes in any real way. Although he only had a pair of 4's, he noticed Hilda the oldest sister blinking rapidly. It reportedly escalated from there. 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. at 455 (ongoing alleged "bait and switch" sales practices); and McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 569 (why government raid failed). We conclude that Wamstad is a limited public figure, that all Defendant-Appellants conclusively negated the element of "actual malice," which Wamstad did not successfully controvert, thus entitling them to summary judgment as a matter of law. 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." Id. Rem. 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. Prac. Id., (citing Trotter v. Jack Anderson Enters., Inc., 818 F.2d 431, 433 (5th Cir.1987)). He was advised not to discuss matters subject to attorney-client privilege, and then Wamstad's attorney asked, What was the next personal involvement you had regarding anything with Dale Wamstad or a proposed article on Dale Wamstad? Williams responded, Beyond that point, I can't specifically recall anything. Wamstad argues this deposition testimony controverts Williams' affidavit testimony that directly negates actual malice. Wamstad reportedly bristled at that characterization of the truth, claiming, Twenty-three million dollars is truth.. Wamstad argues that because the Individual Defendants' credibility is at issue, summary judgment is inappropriate, relying on Casso. 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.

Keehr Funeral Home, Articles D