Rapper DaBaby was found not liable for breach of contract or battery in this case two weeks ago as to one plaintiff (Carey) and for $100 in damages as to another (Anyadike), apparently conveniently offset by $100 that DaBaby would get from the two in a counterclaim invasion of privacy and unauthorized use of name or likeness counterclaim. But the defamation claims against DaBaby had been thrown out in September, in an opinion (Carey v. Kirk) by Judge Jose Martinez (S.D. Fla.) that was just posted on Westlaw in the last couple of days:
Sometimes being a Rockstar, or simply acting like one, has consequences. Plaintiffs' case arises out of a physical altercation between Defendant Jonathan Kirk, a/k/a DaBaby, and Plaintiffs Kenneth Carey and Steve Anyadike….
The incident giving rise to this lawsuit can best be described as a Big Business deal gone wrong. Kirk entered into a written agreement with Anyadike to make a "social media drop" and event walkthrough at a show scheduled to take place on January 2, 2020, at a nightclub in Pembroke Pines, Florida. In exchange, Anyadike agreed to pay Kirk a $20,000 engagement fee. What actually happened on January 2, 2020 is in much dispute. But one thing is clear: Kirk hit Anyadike. His reasons for doing so, however, are hotly contested by the parties. Premised on this background, Plaintiffs filed suit against Kirk ….
[T]he Court finds that the only claims that survive summary judgment are Anyadike's claim against Kirk for breach of contract (Count I), and Carey's claims against Kirk for assault (Count II) and battery (Count III). Further, because the Court finds Kirk liable for assault (Count II) and battery (Count III) as to Anyadike, this claim also proceeds to trial for a determination of Anyadike's damages….
The parties cross-move for summary judgment on the defamation claims (Count VI). For the following reasons, the Court grants Kirk's motion for summary judgment on this claim….
A common law claim for defamation in Florida requires the following elements: "(1) publication; (2) falsity; (3) actor must act with knowledge or reckless disregard as to the falsity on a matter concerning a public official, or at least negligently on a matter concerning a private person; (4) actual damages; and (5) statement must be defamatory." A "defamatory" communication is one that "tends to harm the reputation of another as to lower him or her in estimation of community or deter third persons from associating or dealing with the defamed party."
Plaintiffs bring both a per se and per quod defamation action. Defamation per se must be "actionable on its face" and does not "require[] additional explanation of the words used to show that they have a defamatory meaning and that the person defamed is the plaintiff." Defamation per quod, on the other hand, "requires additional explanation of, or an interpretation of innuendo suggested by the words used to demonstrate the defamatory meaning or that the plaintiff is the subject of the statement." The critical distinction between the two is that in per se cases, the Court may only consider the "'four corners' of the publication and 'the injurious nature of the statement' must be apparent from the words of the publication itself."
