[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEPT 23, 2008
Nos. 07-12668 and 07-13423 THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 03-00490-CV-FTM-99-DNF
DAVID P. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Counter-
Defendant-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM ELROD CLARK,
Defendant-Counter-
Claimant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(September 23, 2008)
Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
William Elrod Clark appeals from an adverse final judgment following a
jury trial in which Clark was found liable for defamation for statements made in
regard to David P. Johnson in two newspaper publications. On appeal, Clark has
challenged the final judgment only as it pertains to the district court’s denial of his
renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial
following the jury’s verdict. Clark also filed a separate appeal from the district
court’s award of attorneys’ fees to Johnson on Clark’s counterclaims. Upon
agreement of the parties, both appeals have been consolidated. After oral argument
and careful consideration, we conclude that the judgment of the district court in
each of these appeals is due to be affirmed.
We review the district court’s determination on a motion for judgment as a
matter of law de novo. Chaney v. City of Orlando, 483 F.3d 1221, 1227 (11th Cir.
2007). In ruling on a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law after the jury
has returned its verdict, “a court’s sole consideration of the jury verdict is to assess
whether that verdict is supported by sufficient evidence.” Id. The court should
review all of the evidence in the record, and in doing so, “must draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility
determinations or weigh the evidence.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products,
Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000).
We conclude the verdict here was supported by sufficient evidence that the
2
relevant publications contained false assertions of fact and implied other
undisclosed facts which were false, and that those false statements were
defamatory as to Johnson. Moreover, there was sufficient evidence from which the
jury could conclude that the false facts in the newspaper article were attributable to
Clark.1 Finally, Clark’s challenge to the award of attorneys’ fees to Johnson is
without merit as he has failed to articulate any substantive arguments in opposition
to the award, which we find was justified under Florida law.
AFFIRMED.
1
To the extent that Clark argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for
judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial because particular statements in the
relevant publications were non-actionable pure opinion and thus, should never have been
presented to the jury, we disagree.
3