ILNews

Judges rule in favor of California attorney in Simon case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A divided Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed the decision of a Marion Superior judge that denied a California attorney’s motion to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed by Herbert and Bui Simon for lack of personal jurisdiction. The lawsuit stems from comments the attorney made to an Indianapolis television station regarding lawsuits involving the Simons.

Joseph Davis, a California attorney representing plaintiffs in several suits against the Simons in California, was contacted by an Indianapolis TV station for comment on the lawsuits, including one involving the Simons’ former house manager in California. Over the phone, Davis said “[t]he firing is because my client refused to engage in an unlawful, meaning a criminal, act pursuant to our immigration laws. . . . This was all designed to conceal from local and state authorities the existence of this undocumented worker.” The comments were aired in Indiana.

The Simons sued in Marion County for defamation and false light publicity based on those statements. Davis wanted the suit dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction or grounds of forum non conveniens. Marion Superior Judge Heather Welch denied the motion.

On interlocutory appeal, the majority ruled in favor of Davis. The judges relied in part on the “express aiming test” outlined in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S. Ct. 1482 (1984), and Ticketmaster-New York, Inc. v. Alioto, 26 F.3d 201, 203 (1st Cir. 1994).

Davis’ act of responding to the questions of a reporter who initiated the contact with Davis in California regarding a California lawsuit, in which he is the plaintiff’s attorney, wasn’t done with the purpose of expressly targeting a resident of the forum state, the majority ruled.

“Davis neither wrote nor disseminated the news story which is the object of the Simons’ defamation and false light claim. In short, the record does not reveal ‘purposeful conduct’ which was ‘intentionally directed at’ Indiana on the part of Davis to defame the Simons in Indiana, and accordingly Davis did not ‘expressly aim’ conduct at the State of Indiana,” wrote Judge Elaine Brown in Joseph A. Davis v. Herbert Simon and Bui Simon, No. 49A04-1101-CT-5.

The majority concluded that an attorney, in answering a reporter’s unsolicited questions - in which the attorney made comments regarding the allegations of a lawsuit and represented that the allegations were truthful -  without more, doesn’t constitute expressly aiming one’s conduct at the forum state.

Judge James Kirsch dissented, writing that Davis engaged in intentional conduct in Indiana that was calculated to cause injury to the Simons in Indiana by “intentionally communicating defamatory statements … to a reporter for an Indianapolis television station.” He believed Davis’ conduct was “expressly aimed” at Indiana.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT