Dee Lincoln took the reins from Dale Wamstad and kicked up the charm. The standards for reviewing summary judgment under rule 166a(c) are well established. 1984). III Forks was created in 1998 by restaurateur Dale Wamstad, who'd just left Del Frisco's Double Eagle Steak House. "The court can see if the press was covering the debate, reporting what people were saying and uncovering facts and theories to help the public formulate some judgment." 4. For example, at the time of the dispute with Piper, the Dallas press reported that Wamstad ran an advertisement stating, "I've done some stupid things in my life, but selling my steakhouse to my attorney has to top the list" and another one in which he accused Piper of running a "clone" restaurant. The record contains numerous references to Wamstad throughout the 1990s, many appearing in the restaurant critic columns, which make frequent references to Wamstad personally. Lyons testified on deposition that Williams commented to her that the draft article was libelous as hell, but it won't be when I'm through with it. When asked shortly thereafter about the comment, she stated she thought the statement was partly in jest and partly reflected that he was still working on the story.. This reliance is misplaced. The feud reportedly began in 1981 when Wamstad claimed Fertel's son had slipped her recipes to him. Civ. Stuertz states in his affidavit that he had arranged an interview with Wamstad, but Wamstad later canceled it on advice of his attorney. Six different former business associates, including Lou Saba and Jack Sands, recount their view of their business dealings with Wamstad and how they came to feel that Wamstad took advantage of them.3 The Article also describes Wamstad's litigation with his long-time rival Ruth Fertel, of Ruth's Chris Steakhouse. Legal Principles Governing Defamation and Public-Figure Status. P. 166a(c); Casso, 776 S.W.2d at 558 ("could have been readily controverted" does not simply mean movant's proof could have been easily and conveniently rebutted). Lena Rumore, ex-wife of Dallas steakhouse mogul Dale Wamstad (III Forks, Del Frisco's), will get a shot at the skillful restaurateur's beefy wallet. Six different former business associates, including Lou Saba and Jack Sands, recount their view of their business dealings with Wamstad and how they came to feel that Wamstad took advantage of them. In an extensive affidavit, Stuertz stated the following, among other things: In researching for the Article, he interviewed at least nineteen people, reviewed numerous court documents (listing fifty-seven documents), court transcripts, and numerous newspaper articles concerning Wamstad (listing forty-eight newspaper articles). The Court summarized as follows: The defendant's state of mind can-indeed, must usually-be proved by circumstantial evidence. at 573-74 (quoting New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279-80). The articles quoted Piper as saying he got involved with Wamstad in 1985 when Dale's wife shot him and states that Piper showed the reporter the 1986 raging bull article from the Times-Picayune. Alan S. Loewinsohn, Loewinshn Flegle, L.L.P., Dallas, for appellee. Wamstad's expert witness opined that the Observer's investigation was "grossly inadequate given the source bias, lack of pre-dissemination opportunity to respond, [and] lack of deadline pressure." Texas Monthly and at least one trade magazine covered the suit with Fertel, as did ABC World News Tonight. The continuing press coverage over the years showed that the public was indeed interested in Wamstad's personal behavior in both the family and business context. Restaurateur Dale Wamstad has sold the 83,000-square-foot retail and office development in Richardson to a local group formed by Huey Investments and Standridge Companies. The record contains numerous advertisements containing pictures of Wamstad's new family and children; many advertisements contain his signature slogan "We're open six evenings. See Huckabee, 19 S.W.3d at 428-29 (extensive legal review with editorial rewrites not evidence of actual malice). Thus, that Wamstad and the divorce judge disagreed with Rumore's allegations is not evidence that the Media Defendants subjectively believed that Rumore's Statements, as they appeared in the Article, were false or that they entertained serious doubts about their truth. The supreme court has adopted the Fifth Circuit's three-part test for a limited-purpose public figure: (1)the controversy at issue must be public both in the sense that people are discussing it and people other than the immediate participants in the controversy are likely to feel the impact of its resolution; (2)the plaintiff must have more than a trivial or tangential role in the controversy; and. . The article also stated that son Roy Wamstad recounted at least eleven separate instances in which he asserted Wamstad physically abused him and his mother. 1992). Wamstad's expert witness opined that the Observer's investigation was grossly inadequate given the source bias, lack of pre-dissemination opportunity to respond, [and] lack of deadline pressure. Wamstad argues that this expert testimony-that the Media Defendants failed to investigate adequately-evinces actual malice. Id. In context, the import of the statement in Casso is that, as to actual malice, the issue of credibility does not preclude summary judgment: If the credibility of the affiant or deponent is likely to be a dispositive factor in the resolution of the case, then summary judgment is inappropriate.
