ADM F. 500 (Rev. 03/22) Order and Judgment
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
DANNLABS,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-421
Plaintiff
v.
STANLEY_LABSON
Defendant
RULING ON THE MOTION FOR DISMISSAL
BACKGROUND
The defendant argues for dismissal based on three main contentions, arguing (1) there was no deception
intended by the publishing of the statements which caused unfair or unlawful gain (2) all statements made were
exercises in free speech and (3) that the plaintiff has no standing to pursue the two claims because of their
position as a judge.
The plaintiff responds, arguing, respective to each of the defendant’s arguments that (1) the statements
were an inherent mischaracterization of facts and the unfair gain was ‘an advantage over [him] in the eyes of the
public,’ (2) that because of the mischaracterization of facts, the statements are not protected speech, and (3) he
is entitled to pursue a claim regardless of his position as a Judge. In support of contention two, the plaintiff
argues that the scope of the Constitution can be narrowed by the legislature.
JUDGMENT
The defendant’s argument, to be frank, is presented in an extremely confusing and convoluted manner.
And, although this fact obviously does not discredit the merits of their motion, it makes it significantly more
difficult to adjudicate. With that being said, this court is not convinced that the defendant has sufficiently
sustained their contentions and sufficiently connected each of them to the excusal of liability on either claim for
the defendant.
It is clear that to intentionally misrepresent facts in such a public manner is a deception of any person
who would see these billboards. It is also clear that there is a prospective unfair gain for the defendant in doing
so because of the potential to diminish the reputation of the plaintiff. This court is satisfied that the plaintiff has
sufficiently articulated their claim for the tort of fraud because of this prospect. Whether or not the defendant
engaged in this conduct with intent to produce an unlawful or unfair gain is a matter that will need to be
addressed at trial and one that is not being addressed in this ruling.
In regards to the second allegation of tortious interference, this court believes that it is evident that the
plaintiff has sufficiently substantiated their claim that the defendant damaged the plaintiff’s career as a judicial
official in such a way that could have caused economic and career harm to the plaintiff. Once again, it is
important to note that this court is not ruling that this damage was legitimate, this court is simply ruling that the
plaintiff has provided sufficient factual basis to raise this specific claim.
In regards to the final contention of the defendant, that their expressions constituted free speech, this
court will not accept it as grounds to dismiss this matter. This court concurs with the plaintiff in that the scope
of the Constitution can be limited by the legislature. The exact parameters of this limitation, if they exist at all,
as well as whether or not the two torts are an exercise in this power of the legislature should be argued at trial
and will not be decided at this time.
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned stated reasons, this court DENIES the defendant’s motion to dismiss the matter
of Dannlabs v. Stanley_Labson.
IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
At Palmer, Ridgeway, this 12th day of June, 2022.
/s/ Hecxtro
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
