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. We conclude that Wamstad's summary judgment evidence, in essence, merely asserts falsity of the Individual Defendants' Statements but does not otherwise raise specific, affirmative proof to controvert the Individual Defendants' affidavits negating actual malice. 5. She also describes her subsequent divorce from Wamstad in 1987 and her post-divorce suit against Wamstad in 1995, alleging that he defrauded her with respect to her earlier community-property settlement.2 Trial in that case was pending at the time the Article was published. Id., quoted approvingly in McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 572. It is not enough for the jury to disbelieve the libel defendant's testimony. Limited-purpose public figures are only public figures for a limited range of issues surrounding a particular public controversy. Dale Wamstad, also known as "Del Frisco," is the sole founder of two iconic, nationally recognized steakhouses. 5 Times The Dallas Stars Went for the Gut While Trolling Opponents, Spoon + Fork: A Standard Name for a Not-So-Standard Restaurant, Chai Wallah in Plano Serves 9 Different Types of Chai, Toast to Mom: Where to Celebrate Mothers Day in Style, Mister O1 Pizza Opening Second Location in Grapevine, In Which Some Visitors From Paris Take a Food Tour of North Texas. All Defendants brought motions for summary judgment, which the trial court denied, and all Defendants brought this interlocutory appeal. He stated that "the final result was truthful, accurate, and a fair representation of the reporter's research." The record evidence shows that around the time Rumore was tried for shooting Wamstad, in 1986, he began to receive considerable press attention concerning his domestic life. 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. 973 F.2d 1263, 1270-71 (5th Cir.1992). 1985). The Article was precisely about that contradiction and thus a continuation of the public discussion of Wamstad's endeavors and disputes. Dale Wamstad redefined the Dallas steakhouse in 1981 when he opened Del Frisco's on Lemmon Avenue. "`By publishing your views you invite public criticism and rebuttal; you enter voluntarily into one of the submarkets of ideas and opinions and consent therefore to the rough competition in the marketplace.'" Roy Wamstad describes specific incidents in which he asserts his father physically and emotionally abused him. 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). 7. The actor . Again, the press covered the personal aspects of the rivalry between the parties, reporting that both sides claimed total victory. Leyendecker is inapposite; it involved a showing of common-law malice to support exemplary damages, not a showing of constitutional "actual malice" required of a public-figure plaintiff to establish defamation. 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. Williams responded, "Beyond that point, I can't specifically recall anything." at 1271. 2000). Wamstad also sued Rumore, Saba, and Sands (collectively, "Individual Defendants"). Chamberlain was reportedly perplexed: his advertisement had not mentioned Lincoln by name, and he had used the same advertising concept for nearly five years, which was a list that compared Chamberlain's four-star listing with the three-and-a-half stars enjoyed by Del Frisco's and others, with the recent inclusion of III Forks on the lower-rated list. 710). The purpose of the actual-malice standard is protecting innocent but erroneous speech on public issues, while deterring calculated falsehoods. Turner v. KTRK Television, Inc., 38 S.W.3d 103, 120 (Tex.2000). Most, if not all of the statements about Wamstad in the Article were corroborated, either by prior sworn court testimony or by other witnesses, and based on the similarity of assertions made by the sources, he did not doubt the credibility of any of his sources, including Rumore and Roy Wamstad. In essence, he argues that falsity of the Statements is probative of actual malice. Wamstad sued Fertel for defamation, and Fertel countersued for false advertising and unfair competition. It is not probative of the Media Defendants' conscious awareness of falsity or whether they subjectively entertained serious doubt as to the truth or falsity of the Statements as reported in the Article. 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. 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. 1988) (businessman, the subject of consumer complaints and suits, was public figure because by his conduct he "voluntarily engaged in a course that was bound to invite attention and comment"). (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. But in determining whether a "public controversy" exists, we look to whether the public actually is discussing a matter, not whether the content of the discussion is important to public life. Texas courts have held that falsity alone is not probative of actual malice. I probably deserve it. Dale is related to Dale Tervooren and Dane Thomas Wamstad as well as 3 additional people. That the Media Defendants published her Statements anyway, his argument goes, is evidence of actual malice. Id. P. 166a(c). Co. L.P., 19 S.W.3d 413, 420 (Tex. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Dale Wamstad sells development just east of Richardson's CityLine. Fertel's lawyer asserted he got Wamstad to admit to his connection with, and payments to, the publicist who created the list. Dalw Wamstad Business - dalefwamstad.com 1980)). The restaurant is the latest culinary project by restaurateur Dale Wamstad. 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. New York Times Co. v. Connor, 365 F.2d 567, 576 (5th Cir. Several inquiries are relevant in examining the libel plaintiff's role in the controversy: (1) whether the plaintiff sought publicity surrounding the controversy, (2) whether the plaintiff had access to the media, and (3) whether the plaintiff voluntarily engaged in activities that necessarily involved the risk of increased exposure and injury to reputation. Id. The Court summarized as follows: The defendant's state of mind can-indeed, must usually-be proved by circumstantial evidence. 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). 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. Cos., 684 F. Supp. WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex. Broad. New Restaurant from Del Frisco's founder Dale Wamstad To Debut Next See Howell v. Hecht, 821 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, writ denied) (concluding similar language negated actual malice). Svalesen claims in court records that he did honor his agreement and was properly issued the shares in lieu of cash through "my previously rendered services which were equal to or in excess of the monetary value assigned to the shares." She's a great lady Chamberlain was reportedly perplexed: his advertisement had not mentioned Lincoln by name, and he had used the same advertising concept for nearly five years, which was a list that compared Chamberlain's four-star listing with the three-and-a-half stars enjoyed by Del Frisco's and others, with the recent inclusion of III Forks on the lower-rated list. Wamstad's role was both central and germane to the controversy about his contentious relationships. 1979). Thus, the issue of credibility does not preclude summary judgment on the issue of actual malice. Through the 1990s, Wamstad advertised in both print media and radio, using an image of himself as a family-man and folksy steakhouse owner to promote his restaurants. When Piper moved his restaurant, Wamstad reopened a Del Frisco's in the original location. DALLAS, April 16 /PRNewswire/ -- Dee Lincoln, known nationally as the "Queen of Steaks" for her role as one of the leading female businesswomen in the steakhouse industry, resigned from Del. Wamstad himself perpetuated the public nature of the debate over his contentious relationships through his personal self-promotion in his advertising and his other interactions with the press-with all their attendant ramifications for the opinion-forming, consuming public. See Casso, 776 S.W.2d at 558 (citing New York Times, defining actual malice in public-figure case as term of art, different from the common-law definition of malice). 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. Having negated an essential element of Wamstad's cause of action, Defendant-Appellants are entitled to summary judgment. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex.1985). Casso v. Brand, 776 S.W.2d 551, 558 (Tex.1989). Doubleday Co., Inc. v. Rogers, 674 S.W.2d 751, 756 (Tex. In the mid 70's after 20 years in the insurance business, Dale got into the food industry as an investor with Popeye's Famous Fried Chicken. That is, he argues, the Article does not involve the types of controversies found in public-figure cases such as Trotter, 818 F.2d at 434-35 (union official assassination and labor violence in foreign country); Brueggemeyer, 684 F.Supp. The two were inevitably linked, particularly because reports by others contrasted significantly with the family-man persona Wamstad persistently projected in his advertising. The project's first phase is 88% leased and costs $12 million. v. Wechter for the proposition that, when the truth or falsity of a statement is within the particular purview of the defamation defendant, then falsity is probative of malice. See Huckabee, 19 S.W.3d at 428-29 (extensive legal review with editorial rewrites not evidence of actual malice). This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The AP article was picked up by numerous Texas newspapers, as well as newspapers in Charleston, Fort Lauderdale, Chicago, Baton Rouge, and Phoenix. 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. 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. The articles quoted Piper as saying he got involved with Wamstad in 1985 "when Dale's wife shot him" and states that Piper showed the reporter the 1986 "raging bull" article from the Times-Picayune.