Thursday, September 27, 2012

Judge Decides in Defamatory Case: Dentist Saleh Mo against Former Patient

This is off topic, but I had to share a follow-up to the story a few weeks ago Dentist Mo Saleh Sues Former Patient for Defamation Because of Negative Review.   It amazed me that with the recent publicity in Portland about my defamatory case, an area dentist decided to sue a patient who left him a negative review at Yelp.com and other review sites.  My case was covered on all Portland major news stations and beyond and one might think my case would serve as an example to deter foolish lawsuits.  I guess not for Dr. Saleh.   In this case, Dr. Saleh sought $300,000 in damages.  

Earlier today a couple comments come through on that particular blog post.  They were from the defendant in the case, Spencer Bailey:






WOOHOOOOOOO!!!    A big congratulations to YOU, Spencer.  I'm cheering in Eastern Washington for you!!!  What a sweet victory!  Go celebrate!



Here's the new KATU.com article:


Dentist loses suit after fmr. patient criticizes him online
LAKE OSWEGO, Ore. – A dentist, who sued a former patient for defamation, had his lawsuit thrown out Thursday.
A judge decided the critical comments made on review site YELP.com and other sites were free speech.
"I'm disgusted. I'm actually really disgusted," said dentist Mo Saleh, who tried to sue his former client, Spencer Bailey, for defamation after finding negative reviews on the Internet. "The reason I'm risking opportunity and risking this negative exposure is because I feel that this is wrong."


The Anti-SLAPP law was used in this case as was mine.  Spencer Bailey's was represented by attorneys Jeremiah Ross and Linda Williams (my attorney).   Here's a little more about the Anti-SLAPP law and how beneficial it is to those post publicly:


Businesses can sometimes file those suits to quiet criticism. But the Anti-SLAPP law can be a friend to those who are taken to court, giving them free speech protection when they make comments in a public forum and concern a public interest, which a site like YELP seeks to serve. 

"It's not easy to be sued and dragged into court," said Jeremiah Ross, the attorney who represented Bailey. "Just as we anticipated, they couldn't prove their case because it wasn't a defamatory statement." 




Yea, for FREE SPEECH!!! 



15 comments:

  1. Great going, Julie Anne! Thanks for standing up for free speech and being an encouragement to others who exercise it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Always happy to cheer for such a victory. Spencer's ruling came almost exactly 2 months after mine. The emotions are still there! Woohoo!!

      Delete
  2. Good to see free speech prevail! Yet your original post made my mouth hurt. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HA - My mouth sure would have been hurting after hearing all that Dr. Mo wanted to do. Yikes!! Good for Spencer for speaking up, finding a different dentist, and avoiding unnecessary dental work. Crazy!

      Delete
  3. Congrats to Spencer! The consumer's "word of mouth" has always been important to businesses. However, we now have unique ways to get the word out about a business, and I think some business owners just don't know how to handle all of the good or bad reviews they receive. It will be interesting to watch if lawsuits will continue to increase over the years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure they will increase, but thank God for the anti-SLAPP which really goes through the court system much faster than normal court cases and wastes so much time, energy, and emotional stress!

      Dr. Mo really doesn't get that now with the lawsuit, anyone searching his name might have the thought: "hmmm, do I really want to go to a dentist who sues his patients?" Probably not. He did his own damage by suing.

      Delete
  4. My favorite part about these cases, is that the suing party's attorney oftentimes knows from the beginning whether or not you will win or lose your case. However, they will take your money anyway, knowing you are ignorant about law.

    If I was an attorney that defended a church (took tithe money) for unjust lawsuits, I wouldn't want to be in their shoes come white throne day. Me thinks God will not be too happy with said church or attorney.

    By no means am I a better person than the worst attorney. We're all sinners. But I seem to recall a story about money-changers in God's temple, and I'm thinking I wouldn't want that reaction from Jesus when eternal destination is on the table.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve - No kidding. And you raise a good point. In my case, some of the attorneys I interviewed were actually outraged that an attorney would have taken my former pastor's case. In fact, a couple attorneys said that an attorney who takes a crazy case like this could be brought before some sort of peer board. These cases waste the court's time, $$, emotional stress, etc (not to mention the stress, $$, that the defendants have to deal with).

      Too bad these cases couldn't be weeded out beforehand.

      Delete
    2. Sadly Julie,

      For many attorneys, paying their mortgage is more important than your health. Its the world we live in, where mammon rules the earth.

      Delete
  5. Good job reporting this Julie Anne! Congrats to Spencer! Another win for free speech!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Speaking of lawsuits, attorneys, etc., have been wondering if you and the other defendants collected what was owed you by Chuck and BGBC? Just curious if and when that will be enforced.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AL - Great question, AL. I need to send a congratulatory note to my wonderful attorney, so I'll check on the status of payment at the same time. I do know, however, that payment was made to the attorney who represented the two defendants who were dismissed earlier. I think that was somewhere around $17,000.

      Delete
    2. Just curious, if anyone can help out with some of the legal aspects of the situation: Since the plaintiffs have made a payment to the lawyer for the defendants they dismissed from the lawsuit, does that payment provide evidence that they have irrevocably accepted the judgment of the court and therefore will not be appealing the decision?

      Delete
  7. Not necessarily. A lot depends on state law and precedent. In some jurisdictions, the party ordered to pay must either pay or post a bond in the amount that is owed (and also post bond for the other side's appeal legal fees!!!), prior to filing their appeal. In some jurisdictions, interest runs from the date of judgment and throughout the appeal process, but no pre-appeal bond or payment is required.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks An Attorney. This is continuing to be an important learning experience, and I appreciate you chiming in with details and leads on what to be watching for.

      I guess we need to be praying until the "end" has fully ended ...

      Delete

Please refrain from using "Anonymous" as your user ID. Instead, click on Name/URL. In the "name" field, type your pseudonym, ie, Fred Flinstone.

You may leave the URL field blank. Thank you for commenting!

I reserve the right to remove or not publish disruptive and/or rude comments.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.