My best guess is that the $ 115 million verdict (likely to be substantially increased when the jury considers punitive damages next week) in favor of Hulk Hogan (ne, Terry Bollea) against Gawker will not stand. From what I have read, the judge made a number of questionable evidentiary rulings and gave a jury instruction that minimized the role of the First Amendment. And some facts will be subject to independent appellate review because they implicate the First Amendment.
But I want to discuss a different question that I missed two years ago–why the case was in a Florida state court at all, where Hogan seems to have gotten some home cooking. Hogan sued Gawker and Heather Clem, the woman in the video; Clem and Hogan are both Florida citizens, destroying complete diversity. Gawker removed anyway, but the district court remanded, rejecting Gawker’s argument that Clem was fraudulently joined (as well as an argument that the First or Fourteenth Amendments were necessarily raised by Hogan’s state tort claims, creating federal question jurisdiction).
The common defense of the complete diversity requirement, most recently reaffirmed
Comments
… this judgement is a tad obscene on some level.
Like the Anna Nicole matter, there is as suggested various technical concerns beyond the tabloid facts.
Posted by: Joe | Mar 19, 2016 12:25:18 PM
I have not kept up with this case but what 55M economic harm he showed is something I’m somewhat curious about. Ditto the 60M emotional distress. Not to belittle his problems here, but seems a TAD excessive to me. In fact, given how people with let’s be blunt a lot more serious problems get a lot less, even on the levels of judgments that will not be obtained.
Posted by: Joe | Mar 19, 2016 12:23:43 PM