HARRISBURG – The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has unanimously ruled that venue standards for defamation established more than half a century ago continue to hold up, despite the quantum leaps of technological change which have taken place during that time.
After hearing a consolidated quartet of appeals in September, Supreme Court Justice Thomas G. Saylor issued an opinion to that effect on Nov. 17, which was joined by each of the other justices on the state Supreme Court.
The appeals wanted to overturn a Superior Court of Pennsylvania decision which concurred with the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas trial court ruling in Fox v. Smith Et.Al, which argued based on the standard set in Gaetano v. Sharon Herald, Philadelphia was a proper venue in which to bring a defamation lawsuit.
The plaintiff, Joy Fox, was the Democratic candidate in a 2017 mayoral election in Chester Heights and had lodged a defamation lawsuit against her victorious opponent, Republican Stacey Smith, and some of her backers for allegedly designing a website and distributing flyers which contained damaging and false information about her.
Smith and her co-defendants had filed preliminary objections to the suit being brought in a Philadelphia court, as the allegedly-defamatory material in question was targeted to voters in Delaware County, and that to do otherwise would be to approve plaintiffs being permitted to engage in venue-shopping.
Both of the lower court decisions sought clarity on the 1967 venue standard for defamation, which Saylor and his colleagues provided in the state Supreme Court ruling.
According to Saylor, “A plaintiff may select a single venue in a defamation action in any location in which publication and concomitant injury has occurred, albeit that publication and harm may have ensued in multiple counties.”
“These are the rules which were in force at the time that [Fox] lodged her complaint, and we decline to undertake to retroactively adjust them. In any event – at least upon review of the competing policy arguments before us at this time – the Court is not presently of a mind to consider prospective alterations via the rulemaking process,” Saylor said.
“Gaetano’s framework appropriately balances the interest of plaintiffs in restoring their reputations in forums in which they have been damaged with the ability of defendants to ensure that selected venues are meaningfully connected to the disputes.”
This ruling from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania differed from those earlier ones reached by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which had supported the concept of re-evaluating the Gaetano standard in the wake of the Internet age and social media.
But now as a result of the state Supreme Court ruling, the case will now be remanded to its point of origin, the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania cases 39-42 EAP 2019
Superior Court of Pennsylvania cases 1938, 1942, 1952 & 1968 EDA 2019
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 180201438
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com