W.J.A. v. D.A.

Rule of Law:

The doctrine of presumed damages continues to apply in New Jersey defamation cases involving private plaintiffs and matters of private concern, allowing plaintiffs to survive summary judgment and obtain nominal damages for reputational harm, but requiring proof of actual reputational damage for compensatory awards.

Facts:

• Wayne Anderson was accused by his nephew, Dave Adams, of sexually assaulting Adams at various times when Adams was a minor.
• In February 2007, Adams created a website where he recounted the alleged sexual abuse by Anderson, included details and quotations from a previous trial, and made new allegations of perjury and witness intimidation.
• The website openly stated Adams's mission was to "tell all 298,444,125 US Citizens about this!" and displayed Anderson’s name and address.
• Adams sent letters to Anderson’s attorney, threatening to sue Anderson and his attorney if collection attempts on a previous judgment continued, and included his website address in bold text.
• Anderson’s attorney contacted Adams’s attorney, demanding the website be shut down due to defamatory statements and threatening a new defamation lawsuit.
• Adams took down the website five days after receiving notification about its defamatory content.

Procedural Posture:

• In 1998, Dave Adams filed a complaint against Wayne Anderson in trial court, alleging sexual assault.
• Anderson moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, which was granted after a Lopez hearing, dismissing Adams' complaint.
• Anderson counterclaimed against Adams for frivolous litigation and defamation (libel and slander).
• In May 2002, a jury in the trial court found Adams' allegations of sexual abuse were false and defamatory, awarding Anderson $50,000; the jury found no malice.
• Anderson was also awarded $41,323.70 on his frivolous litigation claim against Adams, and no appeal ensued from this judgment.
• In 2003, Adams filed for bankruptcy; in 2006, the bankruptcy court determined the judgment against Adams was non-dischargeable.
• In December 2006, Anderson obtained a contempt order against Adams for failure to comply with post-judgment discovery requests.
• Adams moved to vacate the judgment under Rule 4:50-1, which was ultimately denied.
• In March 2007, Anderson filed a new complaint in trial court alleging Adams’s website contained defamatory statements.
• Adams failed to answer, leading to an entry of default against him, and Anderson moved for the entry of default judgment.
• In May 2008, Adams entered a special appearance, challenging service of process, seeking to vacate the entry of default, and requesting dismissal for lack of jurisdiction; the judge granted the motion to vacate default but denied the motion to dismiss.
• In December 2008, Anderson moved for summary judgment in the second defamation case.
• In January 2009, the trial judge denied Anderson's motion for summary judgment, concluding that some evidence of cognizable damages was required, despite finding the statements defamatory per se; the judge then granted summary judgment to Adams, dismissing Anderson's complaint with prejudice.
• Anderson appealed this summary judgment dismissal to the Appellate Division.
• The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's dismissal, holding that the right to recover damages in a libel action without proof of actual harm remained the law.
• Adams filed a petition for certification to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, which was granted.