Wife reposted husband’s allegedly defamatory posts

Where a wife reposted her husband’s allegedly defamatory Facebook posts about the plaintiff knowing that what she was posting was false or at least inherently improbable, her motion to dismiss the defamation claim was denied.

Background

Pamela K. Hartnett’s amended complaint asserts claims of assault and battery, defamation, negligence, gross negligence, willful and wanton negligence, trespass and malicious prosecution. Defendants have filed motions to dismiss.

Jurisdiction

Defendants argue that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because complete diversity does not exist between the parties. The court agrees that Hartnett has clearly established that she abandoned her old Virginia domicile and established a new one in North Carolina.

At the time Hartnett filed her original complaint, she had been living in North Carolina for six months. Plaintiff is registered to vote in North Carolina; she has resided in North Carolina since June 9, 2022; she pays for utilities at her North Carolina residence; her personal property, such as her vehicle and furniture, are located in North Carolina; she is a member of a church in North Carolina and her driver’s license, car insurance, title and registration are also in North Carolina. As such, complete diversity exists between the parties and the court has jurisdiction over this matter.

Defamation

Defendants argue that Hartnett has failed to plead any concrete facts to support her contention that Israel De La Cruz, Mari Liza Hardenbergh or the corporate defendants published an actionable defamatory statement about her. Hartnett has not sufficiently pled a claim of defamation as to De La Cruz because there are no specific indications that De La Cruz was the one who posted or even contributed to the defamatory posts.

However Hartnett has adequately plead a claim of defamation against Mari for the reposting of Charles Vanevera Hardenbergh’s Facebook posts. When the facts as Hartnett has asserted are taken as true, they show that Mari did repost Van’s alleged defamatory posting knowing that what she was posting was false or at least inherently improbable. Although defendants argue that simply calling someone a “liar” is only a matter of opinion, the way these alleged defamatory posts were made, when taking the statements as a whole and in context, it is clear that the posts were not simply a matter of opinion.

The court finds that Hartnett has sufficiently pied the elements of a defamation claim against the corporate defendants. Van’s testimony establishes that he was aware that someone at his office posted the allegedly defamatory poster, and she has alleged that the corporate defendants are owned and, at least in part, are controlled by the Hardenberghs.

Malicious prosecution

Hartnett has sufficiently pled a malicious prosecution claim against Mari because defendants improperly seeking a protective order can support a claim for malicious prosecution. Additionally, Hartnett has established the requisite malicious intent requirement as to Mari because the amended complaint is replete with instances indicating “a history of animosity between the parties … based on the parties’ entire course of conduct towards each other.” And Mari was personally involved in the underlying circumstances that supported the filing of the protective order,

As to De La Cruz, although the amended complaint clearly references the contentious history and animosity between the Hardenberghs and Hartnett, she fails to indicate that there was similar history between herself and De La Cruz. Moreover there is nothing additional to indicate that he cooperated or ratified the issuance of the protective order. Furthermore, Hartnett does not allege that De La Cruz had any personal knowledge that the underlying circumstances supporting the protective order were false.

Negligence

Hartnett has adequately pled claims of negligence, gross negligence and willful and wanton negligence against the Hardenberghs in a single count. So long as Hartnett delineates how the Hardenberghs’ conduct supports a claim as to each degree of negligence recognized under Virginia law, the issue of what degree of negligence actually applies becomes one of fact to be determined by the jury.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss granted in part, denied in part.

Hartnett v. Hardenbergh, Case No. 3:23-cv-17, Aug. 2, 2023. EDVA at Richmond (Hudson). VLW 023-3-451. 37 pp.