PHILADELPHIA (Legal Newsline) – Lawyer Michael Avenatti will appeal a federal judge’s ruling that tossed his defamation lawsuit against Fox News.
He filed his notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Sept. 9 in Delaware federal court, where last month Judge Stephanos Bibas decided Avenatti’s lawsuit could not overcome the accuracy of Fox News’ reporting.
Avenatti, known for representing adult-film actress Stormy Daniels in her lawsuits against President Donald Trump and an alleged extortion scheme involving Nike, sued Fox News over its coverage of his 2018 arrest for domestic violence. Formal charges were not filed.
What he called defamation, Fox News called accurate reporting. Judge Bibas, a member of the Third Circuit sitting by designation in Delaware, agreed.
“Avenatti dislikes how Fox News covered his arrest. But he cannot overcome the truthfulness of the gist of Fox’s coverage—he was, after all, arrested for suspected domestic violence,” Bibas wrote.
“Plus, he has not shown that Defendants knew, or deliberately ignored, any inaccuracies in their reporting. And he expressly disclaims the need to allege special damages, as he must under California law. Perhaps Avenatti can cure the actual malice and damages defects for some of his claims. So I will dismiss his complaint without prejudice.”
Fox News personalities included as defendants in the case include Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Bret Baier. They are represented by attorneys at Ross Aronstam & Moritz and Brown George Ross.
Those personalities reported Avenatti’s arrest in 2018 on suspicion of domestic violence charges, but Avenatti was never charged with a crime. Laura Ingraham opined he was “an arrest waiting to happen” and that he “has a heck of a right hook.”
A couple of Fox News articles claimed he had been charged with felony domestic violence, and some of what Avenatti claimed was defamation was opinion, Bibas wrote.
“Avenatti has thus failed to state a defamation claim based on these remarks; any factual error was too small to count. So he is left with just three statements: (1) the victim was his estranged wife; (2) she was bruised with a black eye; and (3) he ran after her, saying, ‘She hit me first,’” Bibas wrote.
“But Avenatti’s defamation suit cannot win on these statements either. He is undoubtedly a public figure. Indeed, his self-described media campaign and potential presidential candidacy certainly ‘invite[d] attention and comment.
“So he must plead actual malice: Defendants either knew their statements were false or made them with ‘reckless disregard’ for their truth.
“Yet all he provides are conclusory statements and implausible assertions. This is not enough.”