Tex. The Texas Supreme Court has recently addressed the issue of what type of evidence is probative of actual malice in a case involving media defendants. We conclude the Individual Defendants' affidavits negated actual malice. As noted by D Magazine, it was unlike other high-end steakhouses in Dallas, . In actual-malice cases, such affidavits must establish the defendant's belief in the challenged statements' truth and provide a plausible basis for this belief. He discussed the extensive interviews, media reports, court documents and transcripts Stuertz used and the level of corroboration among the sources. News v. Dracos, 922 S.W.2d 242, 255 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no writ) (actual malice cannot be inferred from falsity of the challenged statement alone); Fort Worth Star-Telegram v. Street, 61 S.W.3d 704, 713-14 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. Broad. In actual-malice cases, such affidavits must establish the defendant's belief in the challenged statements' truth and provide a plausible basis for this belief. Dale is related to Dale Tervooren and Dane Thomas Wamstad as well as 3 additional people. The record evidence shows that around the time Rumore was tried for shooting Wamstad, in 1986, he began to receive considerable press attention concerning his domestic life. Rumore and the Divorce Judge's Pronouncement, As to Rumore, Wamstad relies on additional evidence, including evidence of a polygraph he purportedly passed, refuting Rumore's allegations of abuse. 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). Neither do the actions of the Media Defendants evince a purposeful avoidance of the truth. Tex. Dale Wamstad - Address & Phone Number | Whitepages Wamstad said the article, which detailed his relationships with his ex-wife, their son, and some of Wamstad's business associates, harmed his reputation. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Former Fish chef Chris Svalesen countersued his ex-Fish Partner Steven Upright last month in the latest installment of their ongoing ownership battle in the successful downtown seafood restaurant. Wamstad asserts six categories of evidence that he contends controvert the Media Defendants' denial of actual malice: (1) the Media Defendants were on notice that Rumore's credibility was questioned by the divorce judge, who questioned her allegations of Wamstad's abuse and her claim that she shot Wamstad in self-defense; (2) in recounting her tale of life with Wamstad, Rumore stated sometimes I'm not sure what is a dream and what is real, but nonetheless, Stuertz admitted Rumore was his main source for the article; (3) the Observer was aware before it published the Article that Wamstad had passed a polygraph examination that contradicted Rumore's allegations of abuse; (4) Stuertz admitted he questioned the logic of Rumore's remarrying Wamstad despite her allegations of previous abuse; (5) Wamstad's media expert testified that the Observer's investigation was grossly inadequate; and (6) on deposition, editor Lyons testified that managing editor Williams stated the Article was libelous as hell, but it won't be when I'm through with it, and Williams testified he had no further personal involvement with the Article after that conversation. See also Brueggemeyer v. Am. Sometime after the opening, the Dallas Business Journal and the Observer covered yet another of Wamstad's business disputes-again focusing on the personal aspects of the dispute-this time with rival steakhouse-owner Richard Chamberlain. Dee Lincoln took the reins from Dale Wamstad and kicked up the charm. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. . (quoting St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731, 88 S.Ct. Wamstad named as defendants parties associated with the media as well as individuals. "Actual malice is defined as the publication of a statement `with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.'" 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. The Casso court went on to explain that the plaintiff must offer, at trial, clear and convincing affirmative proof of actual malice. The managing editor had stated to her that virtually all of the information, even that conveyed in interviews with Rumore and Roy Wamstad, was corroborated by other sources or documents. Again, the press covered the personal aspects of the rivalry between the parties, reporting that both sides claimed total victory.8, In 1998, the Dallas press covered the run-up to, and opening of, Wamstad's III Forks restaurant. He went on to add that Piper was "a piece of snot floating in the ocean.". 30 Years of Dining in Dallas - D Magazine ", In 1998, the Dallas press covered the run-up to, and opening of, Wamstad's III Forks restaurant. Appellants argue that Wamstad is a public figure, and thus he has the burden to show that each Defendant-Appellant published the Statements attributable to him or her with actual malice. The second element requires that the plaintiff have more than a trivial or tangential role in the controversy. Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas. New York Times Co. v. Connor, 365 F.2d 567, 576 (5th Cir.1966). Texas courts have held that falsity alone is not probative of actual malice. I spend Sundays with my family. 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 1998.5, The press reported on a number of Wamstad's business disputes, particularly those with a personal edge to them. The failure to investigate has been held insufficient to establish actual malice. To establish reckless disregard in this context, a defamation plaintiff must prove that the publisher entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. Id. Although he only had a pair of 4's, he noticed Hilda the oldest sister blinking rapidly. Limited-purpose public figures are only public figures for a limited range of issues surrounding a particular public controversy. Turner, 38 S.W.3d at 120. Apparently incensed at the steak-house . Wamstad asserts he does not meet the public-figure test, because there is no "public controversy." Mgmt. To determine whether a controversy existed, and, if so, to define its contours, the judge must examine whether persons actually were discussing some specific question. Id. Three employees of the Observer-reporter Mark Stuertz, managing editor Patrick Williams, and editor Julie Lyons-each submitted an affidavit denying actual malice. While that may well raise a fact question whether Rumore did indeed act in self-defense, it is not probative of Rumore's subjective attitude toward the truth of the Statements she made. stating that because the plaintiff and a judge disagreed with a source's characterization of a statement is not evidence that the media defendant reiterating the statement acted with actual malice, relying on the substantial media coverage of Wamstad and numerous articles written about him over the past 15-plus years, and "the public nature of the debate over his contentious relationships through his personal self-promotion in his advertising and his other interactions with the press-with all their attendant ramifications for the opinion-forming, consuming public" to conclude that a public controversy existed. Id. Join the Observer community and help support 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 . Meet the 'Queen of Steaks' who runs one of Frisco's highest grossing He discussed the extensive interviews, media reports, court documents and transcripts Stuertz used and the level of corroboration among the sources. She also describes her subsequent divorce from Wamstad in 1987 and her post-divorce suit against Wamstad in 1995, alleging that he defrauded her with respect to her earlier community-property settlement. 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. All Defendants sought summary judgment, which the trial court denied, and all Defendants appealed. Each Defendant filed a traditional motion for summary judgment under rule 166a(c) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.4 Tex.R. Lyons testified on deposition that Williams commented to her that the draft article was libelous as hell, but it won't be when I'm through with it. When asked shortly thereafter about the comment, she stated she thought the statement was partly in jest and partly reflected that he was still working on the story.. See Tex. Wamstad argues this deposition testimony controverts Williams' affidavit testimony that directly negates actual malice. 51.014(6). The feud reportedly began in 1981 when Wamstad claimed Fertel's son had slipped her recipes to him. Wamstad also points to the divorce court's judgment granting Wamstad a separation from Rumore on the grounds of attempted murder. The record evidence shows that around the time Rumore was tried for shooting Wamstad, in 1986, he began to receive considerable press attention concerning his domestic life. 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. Finally, Wamstad argues he raises a fact question on actual malice based on deposition testimony of Williams and Lyons. The lawsuit was eventually settled. Leyendecker is inapposite; it involved a showing of common-law malice to support exemplary damages, not a showing of constitutional "actual malice" required of a public-figure plaintiff to establish defamation. A failure to investigate fully is not evidence of actual malice; a purposeful avoidance of the truth is. Details on the shooting from the Dallas Observer: The purse on the sofa held the .25-caliber semiautomatic pistol her husband had given her two years earlier to protect herself when she closed the. Trial in that case was pending at the time the Article was published. Williams testified on deposition that he spoke with Lyons, and they talked about what the Observer's lawyer and Williams had previously discussed. 1992). Although as a whole the Article is unfavorable to Wamstad, it states that Wamstad both in media interviews and under oath in court has steadfastly denied ever abusing any member of his family. It also includes favorable statements about Wamstad made by his current father-in-law. We conclude the Individual Defendants' affidavits negated actual malice. He had no knowledge that the Article or any statements in it were false and at no time did he entertain any doubts as to the truth of the statements in the Article. In 1986, she and partner Dale Wamstad moved Del Frisco's to Dallas where it later mushroomed with success when it was bought by Lone Star Steakhouse and Saloon in 1995. Moreover, even assuming Wamstad's expert's testimony is admissible, the opinion on the Media Defendant's alleged failure to investigate speaks, rather, to an alleged disregard of a standard of objectivity. Wamstad reportedly "bristled" at that characterization of the "truth," claiming, "Twenty-three million dollars is truth. Once the defendant has produced evidence negating actual malice as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to present controverting proof raising a genuine issue of material fact. WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex. 7. On July 16, 1986, Lena Rumore was found innocent. The second best result is Dale Tervooren age 30s in McKinney, TX in the Eldorado neighborhood. 00-02758-C, Gary Hall, J. J. Michael Tibbals, Joseph A. Barbknecht, J. Brantley Saunders, The Barbknecht Firm, P.C., David G. Allen, Stacy Conder, L.L.P., Charles L. Babock, Jim (James) McCown, Jackson Walker, LLP, Dallas, for appellants. 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.