Jay Folse v. Suzanne Elliott; West Virginia Newspaper Publishing Company, dba Dominion Post; and West Virginia Radio Corporation, dba Metro News

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the dismissal of Jay Folse’s defamation complaint against Suzanne Elliott and media defendants. The court held that the article reporting events at a public meeting was protected by the public meeting reporting privilege and that the complaint failed to allege a nonprivileged communication. The court reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed the circuit court’s December 11, 2020, order.

Holdings

1. The complaint alleged one article published in two formats, and the article attached to the complaint formed the basis of Folse's defamation claim.
2. The article was a privileged communication because it fairly reported events that occurred at a public meeting concerning a matter of public concern; therefore, the complaint failed to allege the nonprivileged communication element of private-party defamation.
3. No factual disputes apparent from the complaint precluded dismissal because Folse's arguments concerning the source of the information and timing of the confrontation were contradicted by his own allegations.
4. The complaint did not allege reckless disregard and did not provide a basis for defeating the privilege on that ground; Folse could not assert on appeal an allegation not contained in his complaint.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint alleged a defamation claim based on two separate publications or one article published in two formats.
2. Whether the article constituted a privileged report of an official action or a meeting open to the public under West Virginia's public meeting reporting privilege.
3. Whether factual disputes concerning the source of the article's information or the timing of the confrontation precluded dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).
4. Whether the complaint alleged malice or reckless disregard sufficient to defeat the qualified privilege.

Disposition

affirmed