Back in August of last year I reported that professional golfer Patrick Reed filed a defamation claim against a number of defendants including commentators for the Golf Channel, and I explained how the complaint was a good model to teach how NOT to draft a complaint. See here.
The complaint was based on obviously wrong arguments and I predicted it would be dismissed. My prediction was correct and the case was dismissed in November. But the dismissal was without prejudice and, thus, Reed and his lawyers were given a chance to amend the complaint and try again.
They shouldn't have because, as I argued back then, the claim was flawed from the start; but they did.
And, predictably, they lost again. As expected, the court found that the alleged defamatory statements were either not defamatory, rhetorical hyperbole, true or substantially true, or statements of opinion.
You can read the opinion, which is pretty detailed and long, here.
No comments:
Post a Comment