By Todd Martin
This past Friday, MMA trainer Juanito Ibarra filed a lawsuit with four counts of action against Tito Ortiz and a wide array of MMA websites including Punch Drunk Gamer, Yahoo Sports, Cage Potato, FightSport Magazine, MMA Frenzy, Bloody Elbow, Fight Ticker, MMA News, 5 Oz. of Pain and the Houston Chronicle. The move stems from frustration over how he has been portrayed in the media following his break with UFC star Quinton Jackson.
MMA has always had a strong online presence, dating back to the period when the sport was largely unavailable on television. Today, there are a host of MMA blog sites which distribute information, rumors and analysis. Some are better than others in their attempts to confirm the accuracy of what they write and to present information in a fair-minded manner. But they are for better or worse here to stay.
There could at some point potentially be an interesting test of the limits of what the MMA blogosphere can say or do. Unfortunately for Ibarra, that test is unlikely to occur here. His suit has little likelihood for success, and may be thrown out in whole or in part by the Los Angeles Superior Court relatively quickly.
The four counts alleged in the lawsuit are defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. It stems from an interview Tito Ortiz did with Punch Drunk Gamer on September 4, 2008. In that interview, Ortiz touched on a wide variety of subjects. There was only one question that touched on Juanito Ibarra and his relationship with Quinton Jackson. The question and answer is included below in its entirety.
“PDG: Hopefully, what do you think of him changing trainers and camps from Juanito Ibarra to Team Wolfslair?
Ortiz: Let me explain this to you because it really pisses me off that Ibarra has done what he has done, he is a thief. I have been running training camps for seven years up in Big Bear California and the most that my camp has cost a fighter to attend is $35,000. Ibarra was charging Jackson $65,000 to go to Big Bear. I don’t understand that!! He was being very disrespectful and taking advantage of ‘Rampage’. Including travel, training partners, food and lodging, the most ever was $35,000, maybe if you flew in more trainers…$40K. Where did that extra money go that Ibarra was charging? ‘Rampage’ is really pissed and he feels betrayed that he was taken advantage of and I couldn’t agree more with him. I don’t care if Juanito reads this or hears about it anywhere, he already knows that he is blackballed. I don’t care who you are; fighters work very hard for the money they earn and I feel slighted for even knowing Juanito.”
Following this interview, a number of websites reported what Ortiz said about Ibarra. Some of the websites joined in Ortiz in criticizing Ibarra’s business practices. Others more simply reported what Ortiz said.
United States law is highly protective of free speech, and as a result defamation claims brought by public figures are very hard to win in America. That’s why there is a tabloid newspaper industry which makes money frequently printing bizarre, harmful and completely untrue stories about American celebrities.
Ibarra’s lawyers, knowing this, argue that Ibarra is a private citizen and that this is not a matter of public concern. However, they then go on to severely undermine that claim. The very first thing they do in their general allegations is point out that Ibarra has worked with more than 15 world champions, won numerous awards, and trained “well known mixed martial artist and a prominent figure in the Ultimate Fighting Champion industry” Quinton Jackson.
A court is highly unlikely to find that Ibarra is not a public figure. In fact, in the very case that extended special protections to speech about public figures, Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, the individual deemed a public figure was a college football coach. Most college football coaches are more famous than MMA trainers, but they are public figures for nearly identical reasons.
If it is established that Ibarra is a public figure, the lawsuit will come down to two key points. First, Ibarra must prove the falsity of Ortiz’s comments and the comments of those reporting on the story. Second, Ibarra must prove that Ortiz and the news sources acted with “actual malice,” meaning that they either knew the statements were false or were reckless as to the falsity of the statement.
The problem with defamation claims against public figures is almost always in regards to this second element. It is very difficult to prove that the defendant knew his statement was false or that he was reckless as to the falsity of the statement (recklessness is a high standard that goes beyond mere negligence).
However, Ibarra’s claim isn’t even strong as to the first element, proving the falsity of the statement. Simple name calling is not defamatory. There needs to be an allegation of fact that reflects negatively on the plaintiff’s character. If I write that Donald Trump is a bigot, Trump is unlikely to win a defamation claim against me. If I write that Donald Trump once directed a racial epithet at his secretary, knowing full well that isn’t true, he could have a successful claim.
Ibarra thus needs to answer the question, “What false statement did Ortiz make about you?” Ortiz in the interview said that Ibarra charges more than other people do to train at Big Bear. That’s an actual fact that can be proven or disproven. The lawsuit doesn’t challenge that, so it’s presumably true.
Ibarra’s claim says that Ortiz’s libelous statements were that Ibarra is a “thief” and has “taken advantage of Rampage.” But those statements seem to simply be Ortiz’s judgment of Ibarra based on the facts about what he charged for training camps. They aren’t demonstrably true or false. That will present a major problem for Ibarra.
Ibarra also faces the more common problem of needing to demonstrate actual malice. There is little to suggest Ortiz knowingly said something untrue about Ibarra or that he was reckless as to the truth of his remarks. Ortiz doesn’t have an axe to grind otherwise with Ibarra; he was sticking up for a friend who he felt had been done wrong. He has no reason to draw negative conclusions about Ibarra if he isn’t confident about the veracity of the underlying claims. Ibarra has a right to publicly defend his charging practices for training camps, but that doesn’t mean he has a valid lawsuit.
An additional problem for the lawsuit is the attempt to bring in a wide variety of media defendants. Many were simply reporting Ortiz’s accusation, not verifying the truth of the matter asserted. The lawsuit tries to tie all the defendants together, saying:
“Defendants conveyed such false and defamatory meanings through each of their specific statements as well as the combination of such statements and juxtaposition of words, which in the aggregate in each publication, and in the context of all publications, conveyed the foregoing defamatory and false meanings of and concerning Plaintiff.”
In the context of all publications, Ibarra perhaps has an argument. But that argument becomes much weaker in the context of the aggregate of each publication. A search of a number of the websites in question suggests few devoted more than a post or two to the issue.
The invasion of privacy claim is likely to sink or swim with the core issues involved in the defamation claim. A false light claim is often easier to win than a defamation claim, but it presents many of the same obstacles.
The intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims are wholly inapplicable to this case. They simply pertain to wildly different fact patterns than what occurred with Ibarra. The court will almost certainly dismiss them immediately.
Given the weak case Ibarra has, one wonders his rationale for filing this lawsuit. He is unlikely to receive any damages, and will likely only be losing money on his attorneys’ fees. And his attack on a variety of media sources is unlikely to help his damaged reputation with media or fans. All in all, it’s a rather perplexing move by Ibarra.
Leave a Reply