7. Facebook Post
Note: This website catalogs publicly available legal documents in both original and website-friendly formats. Please refer to original copies of documents for precise context, content, and formatting.
This page shows the RESPONSE in context of the COMPLAINT
From COMPLAINT (page 4)
26. On May 26, 2019, Dillard posted on Facebook that math performance improvements from Chapel Hill and Wake County had been “falsified.”
27. This statement was and is false, defamatory, and not subject to any privilege.
From Answer & Counterclaim document (page 5)
26. Dillard admits that he authored a Facebook post on May 26, 2019, alleges that the content of that post speaks for itself, and denies all allegations in the Complaint inconsistent with that content and each and every remaining allegation in paragraph 26.
27. Dillard denies the allegations in paragraph 27.
From Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings document (page 4)
MVP characterizes the statements at issue (the “Statements”) as:
7. Dillard’s May 26, 2019 Facebook post indicating “that math performance improvements from Chapel Hill and Wake County had been ‘falsified.’” [Compl. ¶ 26.] This Motion will refer to this statement as the “Facebook Post,” and a copy of the May 26, 2019 Facebook Post is attached as Exhibit E. (Footnote 6)
From Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings document (page 33)
G. THE FACEBOOK POST IS NEITHER DEFAMATORY NOR FALSE.
The final statement that MVP identifies as defamatory is an excerpt from a Facebook post referencing “misleading and falsified success gains from Chapel Hill and Wake County” (the “Facebook Post”). See Exhibit E. This statement is neither defamatory nor false for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the School Board Statement, and any claim based on the Facebook Post should be dismissed as a matter of law. See Section II.F, supra.
6 Exhibits A, B, C, D, E and the hyperlinked video of the April 23, 2019 school board meeting are properly before this Court on a motion for judgment on the pleadings because such are referenced in and central to MVP’s complaint. See Oakwood Village LLC v. Albertsons, Inc., 2004 UT 101, ¶¶ 12-15, 104 P.3d 1226 (“[If] a plaintiff does not incorporate by reference or attach a document to its complaint, but the document is referred to in the complaint and is central to the plaintiff’s claim, a defendant may submit an indisputably authentic copy to the court to be considered on a motion to dismiss.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).