Patterson

Patterson v. Atlantic Research Marketing Systems, Inc.

Good Law
40 F. App'x 589
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 27, 2002No. 01-16367; D.C. No. CV-98-00368-JMRCalifornia353 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Patterson filed a civil action in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona for the County of Pima, alleging defamation on account of a press release issued by Atlantic Research Marketing Systems, Inc. (ARMS). The press release stated that ARMS had been awarded a judgment of $575,000 against Patterson, whom ARMS had sued for patent infringement. It also stated that ARMS would vigorously enforce its rights against other infringers. The press release did not mention that the judgment was subject to an agreement whereby the parties had agreed to settle the matter for only $50,000. ARMS removed the case now before us to federal court and filed a counterclaim for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Patterson then filed a motion for Rule 11 sanctions. The district court entered summary judgment for ARMS on the defamation claim, for Patterson on the counterclaims, and denied Patterson’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions. Patterson appeals, but ARMS does not. We affirm.

Under Arizona law, it is a complete defense to a charge of defamation that the published statements are “substantially true.” Read v. Phoenix Newspapers,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.