Brewington v. Sheridan Broadcasting Network/American Urban Radio Networks

D.C. Circuit

Brewington v. Sheridan Broadcasting Network/American Urban Radio Networks

49 F. App'x 319

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 30, 2002

DocketNo. 01-7139

StatusPublished

This text of 49 F. App'x 319 (Brewington v. Sheridan Broadcasting Network/American Urban Radio Networks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brewington v. Sheridan Broadcasting Network/American Urban Radio Networks, 49 F. App'x 319 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This cause was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the briefs and oral arguments of counsel. It is

Ordered and Adjudged that the district court’s dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., be affirmed. Although the district court dismissed on preemption grounds, this court affirms on the defendants’ alternative theory that the state[320]*320ments were not defamatory. See Dimond v. District of Columbia, 792 F.2d 179, 187 (D.C.Cir.1986).

In Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Ass’n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 90 S.Ct. 1537, 26 L.Ed.2d 6 (1970), the Supreme Court held that the use of the word “blackmail” to describe a developer’s negotiating tactics for zoning variances did not constitute defamation. Id. at 13, 90 S.Ct. at 1541. This case is similar. No reasonable person who was aware of the plaintiffs’ arbitration victory over the defendants would ascribe a defamatory meaning to the defendants’ statements that the plaintiffs were “thieves,” that they were “undeserving,” and that they had exploited the company. At most these words were non-actionable hyperbole. Id. at 14, 90 S.Ct. at 1542.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cib. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This cause was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the briefs and oral arguments of counsel. It is

Ordered and Adjudged that the district court’s dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., be affirmed. Although the district court dismissed on preemption grounds, this court affirms on the defendants’ alternative theory that the state[320]*320ments were not defamatory. See Dimond v. District of Columbia, 792 F.2d 179, 187 (D.C.Cir.1986).

In Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Ass’n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 90 S.Ct. 1537, 26 L.Ed.2d 6 (1970), the Supreme Court held that the use of the word “blackmail” to describe a developer’s negotiating tactics for zoning variances did not constitute defamation. Id. at 13, 90 S.Ct. at 1541. This case is similar. No reasonable person who was aware of the plaintiffs’ arbitration victory over the defendants would ascribe a defamatory meaning to the defendants’ statements that the plaintiffs were “thieves,” that they were “undeserving,” and that they had exploited the company. At most these words were non-actionable hyperbole. Id. at 14, 90 S.Ct. at 1542.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cib. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 F. App'x 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brewington-v-sheridan-broadcasting-networkamerican-urban-radio-networks-cadc-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack