Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1297. The Article also describes numerous disputes former business partners had with Wamstad, many of which resulted in lawsuits. P. 166a(c); Casso, 776 S.W.2d at 558 (could have been readily controverted does not simply mean movant's proof could have been easily and conveniently rebutted). In 1980, with a newfound drive and outlook on life, he founded Del Frisco's Double Eagle Steakhouse and sold it in 1995 for . Williams testified on deposition that he spoke with Lyons, and they talked about what the Observer's lawyer and Williams had previously discussed. The record contains numerous advertisements containing pictures of Wamstad's new family and children; many advertisements contain his signature slogan We're open six evenings. Prac. In sum, we conclude that Wamstad has failed to raise a fact question on actual malice. Dale is related to Dale Tervooren and Dane Thomas Wamstad as well as 3 additional people. Family man | News | Dallas | Dallas Observer | The Leading Independent Nixon v. Mr. I probably deserve it. He had no knowledge indicating that the Article or statements therein were false at the time the Article was published nor did he entertain any doubts as to the truthfulness of any of the matters asserted in the Article. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 573 (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 283, 84 S.Ct. One article in the New Orleans Times-Picayune, entitled "Wounded husband called "a raging bull,'" quoted testimony from the trial of at least three witnesses who described instances they witnessed of Wamstad's physical abuse of Rumore before the shooting. Emmerdale and The Hunt for Raoul Moat star Dale Meeks dies age 47: Ant McPartlin and Declan Donnelly lead the tributes for 'loved and respected' actor whose career began in Byker Grove. Prac. Del Frisco's Double Eagle Steakhouse was founded in 1980 and III Forks in 1998. TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. Accordingly, this is not a case where a defamation plaintiff was thrust into the public eye and involuntarily remained there. Wamstad is a classic case of a shrewd business guy from out of town who got under the skin of corrupt local public servants. Wamstad also sued Rumore, Saba, and Sands (collectively, "Individual Defendants"). Subsequently, in 1995, the press reported that Wamstad dropped the libel suit to facilitate his $23 million sale of Del Frisco's to a national chain. Through his promotion of his family-man image in his advertising over the years, Wamstad voluntarily sought public attention, at the very least for the purpose of influencing the consuming public. General-purpose public figures are those individuals who have achieved such pervasive fame or notoriety that they become public figures for all purposes and in all contexts. 1984). That the Media Defendants published her Statements anyway, his argument goes, is evidence of actual malice. at 558-59. In deciding whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, we take evidence favorable to the non-movant as true; we indulge every reasonable inference, and resolve any doubt, in favor of the non-movant. Wamstad reproduced the list in his advertising, particularly in airline magazines, reportedly with great success. When Piper moved his restaurant, Wamstad reopened a Del Frisco's in the original location. 7. Having invited public rebuttal concerning his persona, Wamstad took on the status of a limited public figure with respect to his behavior in business and family matters. . She alleged Wamstad had defrauded her with respect to her earlier property settlement, in 1992, for $45,000. Although actual malice focuses on the defendant's state of mind, a plaintiff can prove it through objective evidence about the publication's circumstances. Wamstad responded that Piper was treacherous and mean-spirited for raising the shooting, adding that the shooting was all behind him, that he had remarried and had a wife and two beautiful kids. Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 571, 590-96 (Tex. The Article was precisely about that contradiction and thus a continuation of the public discussion of Wamstad's endeavors and disputes. I probably deserve it However, leave Dee Lincoln and Del Frisco's.. out of it. Steaks Unlimited, Inc. v. Deaner, 623 F.2d 264, 273 (3d Cir. 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.". Accordingly, we reverse and render judgment for all Appellants. Id. The divorce judge held that Rumore did not act in self-defense when shooting Wamstad, basing his decision on "discrepancies in Mrs. Wamstad's testimony, her overall lack of credibility and the Court's actual inspection of the premises. The supreme court has adopted the Fifth Circuit's three-part test for a limited-purpose public figure: Id. 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. About TEXAS: Beef Fish Fowl Thereafter, Wamstad married again, and began operating Del Frisco's restaurants in Dallas. Thus, the issue of credibility does not preclude summary judgment on the issue of actual malice. Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561, 590-96 (Tex.2002) (reviewing finding of actual malice for sufficiency, incorporating clear and convincing standard on review). All rights reserved. The two were inevitably linked, particularly because reports by others contrasted significantly with the family-man persona Wamstad persistently projected in his advertising. He stated that he had no knowledge that the Article or any statements in it were false at the time the Article was published, and at no time did he entertain any doubts as to the truth of the statements made in the Article. (quoting St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968)). See Tex. 51.014(6) (Vernon Supp.2003). New Restaurant from Del Frisco's founder Dale Wamstad To Debut Next This reliance is misplaced. 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. Whether a party is a public figure is a question of constitutional law for courts to decide. According to the suit, Upright and Svalesen entered into an agreement in June 1996 whereby Upright would toss in $37,000 in exchange for 768 shares of Pescado stock, while Svalesen would contribute $11,000 in exchange for 230 shares. In deciding whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, we take evidence favorable to the non-movant as true; we indulge every reasonable inference, and resolve any doubt, in favor of the non-movant. Wamstad reportedly bristled at that characterization of the truth, claiming, Twenty-three million dollars is truth.. Dallas' independent source of They have also lived in Richardson, TX and Dallas, TX. Wamstad's reliance on Wilson v. UT Health Center is also misplaced. 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. 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. Wamstad opened III Forks in August 1998 and sold it in July 2000. New in Restaurants: Dale Wamstad's Lost Lady Cantina In 1996, the Dallas press noted that Wamstad was "known for getting embroiled in legal battles with former business partners and rival steakhouse chains." Julie Lyons stated the following in her affidavit: She was aware of the numerous sources for the Article, including court documents and sworn court testimony. 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. 2000). Each Defendant filed a traditional motion for summary judgment under rule 166a(c) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 2000). On May 26, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied Wamstad's attempt to derail his ex-wife's damage suit seeking a portion of the $22.7 million doled out when Lone Star Steak & Saloon purchased Del Frisco's in late 1995. She alleges Wamstad created a "web of lies" to conceal the true ownership and value of Del Frisco's assets following their 1987 divorce. The email address cannot be subscribed. Texas courts have held that falsity alone is not probative of actual malice. Wamstad reportedly "bristled" at that characterization of the "truth," claiming, "Twenty-three million dollars is truth. 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. See Howell v. Hecht, 821 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, writ denied) (concluding similar language negated actual malice). Loads of folks around here admire Dale Wamstad's business sense. Co. L.P., 19 S.W.3d 413, 420 (Tex. (quoting Dilworth v. Dudley, 75 F.3d 307, 309 (7th Cir.1996)). 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. TX Court of Appeals Opinions and Cases | FindLaw The article also stated that son Roy Wamstad recounted at least eleven separate instances in which he asserted Wamstad physically abused him and his mother. at 423. 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. 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. 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. I spend Sundays with my family." P. 166a(c); Casso, 776 S.W.2d at 558 ("could have been readily controverted" does not simply mean movant's proof could have been easily and conveniently rebutted). Dale Wamstad sells development just east of Richardson's CityLine. Business. We reject this argument, just as the court in Huckabee did. One of the most important lessons that they, as parents, have instilled in their daughters, Dale and Shelby Rose, and son, Dane, is that true happiness and fulfillment in their lives comes from three places: the satisfaction of working hard and reaping the fruits of labor, the . Now he knows enough about those events to damage just about any top official's reputation. Dracos, 922 S.W.2d at 255. . Dale Wamstad is Back in the Restaurant Business: Four Sisters Caf in Id. The Rooster Town Cafe will serve breakfast and lunch seven days a week. A failure to investigate fully is not evidence of actual malice; a purposeful avoidance of the truth is. Id., quoted approvingly in McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 572. Trial in that case was pending at the time the Article was published. Tex. at 455 (ongoing alleged bait and switch sales practices); and McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 569 (why government raid failed). 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. at 558-59. at 573-74 (quoting New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279-80, 84 S.Ct. Civ. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 572-73. Huckabee, 19 S.W.3d at 424. Wamstad asserts Stuertz mentioned Rumore's pending lawsuit to him but did not tell him he planned to cover Wamstad's business dealings as well. Patrick Williams stated the following in his affidavit: He had editorial responsibility for Stuertz's article, and he found Stuertz a most accurate reporter. Id. . It will be open Wed.-Sat. The Dallas North Beefway - D Magazine . The case is expected to go to trial this summer. 6. Accordingly, the affidavits negate actual malice and thus shift the burden to Wamstad to produce controverting evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact concerning actual malice. The family he abandoned in New Orleans has a bone to pick with that." In an extensive affidavit, Stuertz stated the following, among other things: In researching for the Article, he interviewed at least nineteen people, reviewed numerous court documents (listing fifty-seven documents), court transcripts, and numerous newspaper articles concerning Wamstad (listing forty-eight newspaper articles). Fertel suggested, in a newsletter to her customers, that the Top-Ten List was a front for Del Frisco's. Stuertz states in his affidavit that he had arranged an interview with Wamstad, but Wamstad later canceled it on advice of his attorney. Bob Cooper--is a little off his T-bone, you may be right. Mgmt. The supreme court has adopted the Fifth Circuit's three-part test for a limited-purpose public figure: (1)the controversy at issue must be public both in the sense that people are discussing it and people other than the immediate participants in the controversy are likely to feel the impact of its resolution; (2)the plaintiff must have more than a trivial or tangential role in the controversy; and. ), In the mid-1990s, the press began referring to Wamstad as flamboyant and controversial. For example, in 1995, the Dallas Morning News described Wamstad as a colorful and controversial member of the Dallas restaurant scene since arriving from New Orleans in 1989. In 1996, the Dallas press noted that Wamstad was known for getting embroiled in legal battles with former business partners and rival steakhouse chains. And the evidence shows that Wamstad used his access to the media to comment on his rivals and his business disputes. 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. The continuing press coverage over the years showed that the public was indeed interested in Wamstad's personal behavior in both the family and business context. Lena Rumore, ex-wife of Dallas steakhouse mogul Dale Wamstad (III Forks, Del Frisco's), will get a shot at the skillful restaurateur's beefy wallet. Prac. Wamstad's ex-wife, Lena Rumore, describes alleged incidents of Wamstad's physical abuse of her, her shooting of Wamstad in 1985, and the ensuing trial in which she was acquitted based on self-defense. In an advertisement in the Dallas Morning News, Wamstad reportedly blasted Chamberlain for picking on Dee Lincoln, Wamstad's former partner and current manager of a Del Frisco's restaurant.9 Chamberlain expressed the view that Wamstad wanted to create some publicity for his new steakhouse and was doing it at the expense of Chamberlain's reputation. .". Three employees of the Observer-reporter Mark Stuertz, managing editor Patrick Williams, and editor Julie Lyons-each submitted an affidavit denying actual malice. & Rem.Code Ann. The Dallas Times Herald published two pieces on the dispute, one entitled "Dueling Steak Knives." The failure to investigate has been held insufficient to establish actual malice. Id. Fertel's lawyer asserted he got Wamstad to admit to his connection with, and payments to, the publicist who created the list. Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 548-49. Wamstad argues that because the Individual Defendants' credibility is at issue, summary judgment is inappropriate, relying on Casso. 166a(c). The Article was precisely about that contradiction and thus a continuation of the public discussion of Wamstad's endeavors and disputes. Our review of the record shows that after Williams was deposed, he testified by affidavit, stating that he went over at least two drafts of the Article with Stuertz, who answered all of his questions, and that the Article went through the standard, detailed process for editing and revision. Roy Wamstad describes specific incidents in which he asserts his father physically and emotionally abused him. In addition, a reporter may rely on statements by a single source, even though they reflect only one side of the story, without manifesting a reckless disregard for the truth. Emmerdale star Dale Meeks dies age 47 as tributes pour in for actor 1323, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968)). The Article also describes Wamstad's litigation with his long-time rival Ruth Fertel, of Ruth's Chris Steakhouse. 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. (Courtesy Adobe Stock) Rooster Town Cafe should open by Labor Day at 3613 Shire Blvd., Ste . 5. Furthermore, that Rumore confessed to confusion about past events, and that Stuertz thought her remarrying Wamstad was not logical, are not probative of whether Stuertz believed the Statements, as they appeared in the Article, were false. 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. III Forks was created in 1998 by restaurateur Dale Wamstad, who'd just left Del Frisco's Double Eagle Steak House. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. out of it. Even after Rumore was acquitted based on self-defense, the New Orleans press continued to cover the couple's subsequent suits against each other, including Wamstad's suit in 1997 against Rumore for damages from shooting him and Rumore's subsequent countersuit for $5 million. 9. For example, in 1995, the Dallas Morning News described Wamstad as "a colorful and controversial member of the Dallas restaurant scene since arriving from New Orleans in 1989." In essence, he argues that falsity of the Statements is probative of actual malice. 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). Wamstad's ex-wife, Lena Rumore, describes alleged incidents of Wamstad's physical abuse of her, her shooting of Wamstad in 1985, and the ensuing trial in which she was acquitted based on self-defense. Id. As used in the defamation context, actual malice is different from traditional common-law malice; it does not include ill will, spite or evil motive. 2003). Three employees of the Observer-reporter Mark Stuertz, managing editor Patrick Williams, and editor Julie Lyons-each submitted an affidavit denying actual malice. One for Us | News | Dallas - Dallas Observer See Huckabee, 19 S.W.3d at 428-29 (extensive legal review with editorial rewrites not evidence of actual malice). ." (When asked to comment for the newspaper articles, Wamstad told one newspaper that the matter is over and refused to return calls to the other. Six different former business associates, including Lou Saba and Jack Sands, recount their view of their business dealings with Wamstad and how they came to feel that Wamstad took advantage of them.3 The Article also describes Wamstad's litigation with his long-time rival Ruth Fertel, of Ruth's Chris Steakhouse. We disagree that no "public" controversy existed. Legal Principles Governing Defamation and Public-Figure Status. (citing Trotter, 818 F.2d at 433; Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publications, Inc., 627 F.2d 1287, 1296-98 (D.C.Cir.1980)). See City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678-79 (Tex. See City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678-79 (Tex.1979). A public-figure libel plaintiff must prove the defendant acted with actual malice in allegedly defaming him. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 573 (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 283 (1964)). Co. L.P., 19 S.W.3d 413, 420 (Tex.2000). 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. We conclude the Individual Defendants' affidavits negated actual malice. at 466.