May 30, 2014 at 4:18 p.m.
Libel lawsuit against county supervisor to continue
Libel lawsuit against county supervisor to continue
Oneida County Circuit Judge Michael Bloom's decision, made at a hearing on Wednesday, effectively means the case will continue unless a settlement is reached.
The plaintiff, James Kroeger, filed the suit in March and has claimed that as a result of the email, he "suffered loss of his reputation, shame, mortification and injury to his feelings."
Mott sent the email as part of a long-running dispute between Kroeger and his neighbors over his woodcutting business. Since at least 2010, neighbors have complained of chainsaw noise and vehicle traffic on Kroeger's property near Pelican Lake, but Kroeger has claimed that his business has not violated any rules and that noise levels have not been excessive, according to public records.
The county's planning and zoning department had issued a conditional use permit to Kroeger in September 2011 limiting the hours he could continuously operate equipment, among other restrictions.
According to Kroeger's lawsuit, Mott sent the email on July 25, 2012, to county officials and a concerned citizen. The message claimed that Kroeger was not following the conditions of the permit, and that he had been cutting wood on weekends and holidays for private use. The email also claimed that Kroeger was "violating the spirit of the CUP in that he is cutting and disturbing the neighborhood."
"Mr. Kr[o]eger could have been a good neighbor and cut his personal wood at the times in the CUP and avoided further aggravating his neighbors," Mott wrote. "He chose to aggravate."
The lawsuit claims that portions of the email are false, and Kroeger, who is seeking unspecified damages and court costs, argues his actions were actually legal.
Though a county appeals panel upheld Kroeger's CUP, the panel noted that the permit was not actually required for a part-time woodcutting business.
In April, Mott's lawyer, Andrew Smith, filed papers to dismiss the case. Smith argued that the words used in the email as a matter of law are not capable of a defamatory meaning.
Therefore, Smith said at Wednesday's hearing, the case should not proceed.
"What's required is for the court to act as a gatekeeper - to look at the statements made and decide initially whether those statements are capable of a defamatory meaning," Smith said.
But citing various court cases, Kroeger's attorney, Keith Ellison, argued that the email clearly met the elements of defamation and harmed Kroeger.
After listening to brief arguments by the lawyers, Bloom said the central issue at the hearing was whether the email could be defamatory - not whether the email was in fact defamatory. Indeed, Bloom noted that the facts and arguments in the case have not been fully developed, as Mott's motion for dismissal was made early on in the lawsuit.
"The question that I have to ask is not so much does the language employed in the email that is alleged in the plaintiff's complaint carry a defamatory meaning," Bloom said. "It's can it carry a defamatory meaning."
In deciding that question, Bloom cited a passage in Mott's email that claimed Kroeger "chose to aggravate." That statement, Bloom said, was the most important for his analysis.
"It would not be unreasonable, regardless of accuracy, for someone to regard that as a statement which would tend to harm one's reputation as to lower him or her in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him or her," Bloom said.
He continued: "I don't believe that I can find as a matter of law that the language that's been alleged in the plaintiff's complaint cannot be interpreted as far as it goes as being defamatory," Bloom said. "I don't believe that I can make a finding as a matter of law that this particular language is not defamatory based on the allegations in the complaint."
Bloom said some defenses could apply, and noted that should the case proceed to a point where he must make a final ruling based on all of the evidence, "a whole different ballgame" could be at play.
For now, however, the lawsuit can move forward, Bloom said.
Written arguments are due this fall and a hearing is scheduled for late November, though the case could be settled before that time.
In an answer to the suit, Mott has denied that he libeled Kroeger, and has argued the email at issue is being taken out of context. Mott has also questioned whether Kroeger suffered any harm because of the communication.
Mott has raised an array of defenses, contending that the email was "substantially true," while simultaneously claiming it was an expression of opinion. He has further asserted that the lawsuit violates a state statute prescribing how libel complaints must be written.
In addition, Mott has argued that his email was similar to statements other people have made in a public forum, was not malicious and was sent as part of his official duties as a county supervisor.
A key argument Mott has put forward is that Kroeger is a limited-purpose public figure because of his appearance at a public forum involving the woodcutting dispute. Should Judge Bloom agree, Kroeger would have a more difficult time prevailing in the case.
Smith, Mott's lawyer, was retained and is being paid under a county insurance policy because the lawsuit focuses on Mott's actions as an elected county official.
Kroeger, Ellison, Mott and Smith declined comment after the hearing for this story.
Jonathan Anderson may be reached at [email protected]
Comments:
You must login to comment.