From Judge Carl Nichols' opinion Monday in Smartmatic USA Corp. v. Powell (D.D.C.):
Smartmatic USA Corp. [and related companies] sued Sidney Powell for making allegedly defamatory statements about Smartmatic's role in the 2020 election. Powell moved to dismiss the complaint ….
Powell raises four categories of substantive challenges to Smartmatic's underlying claims. She contends that Florida's single publication/action rule bars Smartmatic from asserting claims for both defamation and injurious falsehood based on the same statements. She argues that the Court should dismiss Smartmatic's injurious falsehood claims for failing to plead special damages. She contends that several of Smartmatic's defamation claims are deficient for not pleading special damages because they actually sound in injurious falsehood. And she argues that the Court should dismiss certain claims that are supported only by statements made by individuals other than Powell….
The court concluded that Florida law does allow suing both over defamation and the related tort of injurious falsehood, and that Smartmatic had adequately alleged damages. And it had this to say about Powell's argument that Smartmatic hadn't sufficiently alleged defamatory statements by Powell:
