You are on page 1of 37

Number 18-2107

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FIFTEENTH CIRCUIT
______________________________________________________________________________

LAYLA GOLDEN,

APPELLANT

v.

SCARLETT BROWN,

APPELLEE
______________________________________________________________________________

RECORD ON APPEAL

On Appeal from the United States District Court


For the Southern District of Boykin
Hon. Phillip Cook

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE


SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF BOYKIN

______________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS OF LAW 3
COMPLAINT 4
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4
PARTIES 4
STATEMENT OF FACTS 5
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 6
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 8
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 8
ANSWER 9
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9
PARTIES 9
STATEMENT OF FACTS 9
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 10
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 11
DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF SCARLETT BROWN 12
DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF LAYLA GOLDEN 15
DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF BILLY RIPLEY 18
EXHIBIT A 24
EXHIBIT B 22
EXHIBIT C 24
MEMORANDUM OPINION 26
ORDER 35
NOTICE OF APPEAL 36

2
QUESTIONS OF LAW

I. Were the statements made by Layla Golden defamatory?

II. Is the permanent injunction ordered against Layla Golden a prior restraint in violation of

the First Amendment?

3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF BOYKIN
______________________________________________________________________________
Scarlett Brown ) No. CA-2018-34997
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) COMPLAINT
) (Jury Trial Demanded)
Layla Golden )
)
Defendant. )
______________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Scarlett Brown (“Plaintiff”) brings this Complaint for defamation against Layla Golden
(“Defendant”) and states the following:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE


1. This Court enjoys subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)(1) because the Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of different states and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
2. This Court enjoys personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because the false and
defamatory statements made by the Defendant were published in the Southern District
of Boykin, and the Plaintiff was and remains a resident of the Southern District of
Boykin.
3. This Court enjoys venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) because all or substantial
portion of the events that gave rise to Plaintiff’s claims transpired in the Southern
District of Boykin, including the publication or republication of the defamatory
falsehoods and the damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation.

PARTIES
4. Plaintiff, Scarlett Brown, resides at 4674 Gracie Road in Sunny, Boykin.

4
5. Plaintiff, Scarlett Brown, is a professor of English at Boykin Rose Academy in Sunny,
Boykin and the author of several books and articles sold by worldwide publishing
houses including The Perks of Being a Socialite (2005), Commas Count (2006), P.S. I
Love Me (2006), Perfectly Placed Periods (2007), Gone with the Air (2008), Me
Before Anyone (2010), 20 Shades of Brown (2016), Super Sweet Semicolons (2017),
and The Fault in the Fur (2018).
6. Defendant, Layla Golden, resides at 6434 Maggie Drive in Bella, Hollywood.
7. Defendant, Layla Golden, is a style and fashion blogger for media company, Whisper
Words, in Bella, Hollywood.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
8. Plaintiff has been an English teacher and tennis coach at Boykin Rose Academy since
2005.
9. Plaintiff has, during this time, enjoyed a good reputation, both generally and in the
community of Boykin, the academic community, and the writing community.
10. As a prerequisite to be hired at Boykin Rose Academy, all teachers must be published
and have at least a Master’s Degree.
11. Plaintiff obtained her Master’s Degree in Education in 2002 from Ravenswood
University.
12. Plaintiff is the author of several books and articles available on Nile’s online
marketplace.
13. Max Golden is a fifteen year-old high school student at Boykin Rose Academy in the
County of Boykin.
14. Defendant is the mother of Max Golden.
15. Max Golden was enrolled in Plaintiff’s English class for the 2017-2018 and 2018-
2019 school year.
16. Max Golden is also on the Boykin Rose Academy tennis team.
17. The Boykin Rose Academy tennis team requires its members to have a GPA of at least
3.0 in order to play, otherwise they will be benched for the season until they meet the
requirement.

5
18. In September of 2018, Max Golden received an F in Geometry and a C in English,
which dropped his GPA to a 2.9.
19. Plaintiff benched Max Golden for the Fall 2018 tennis season.
20. Immediately following the benching of Max Golden, Defendant took to her own
personal blog, “The Cricket”, Plaintiff’s Nile page for her book Gone with the Air, and
the “Parents of Boykin Rose Academy” Memories page.
21. On each of the three platforms, Defendant published false, defamatory statements
about Plaintiff.
22. Defendant operates a personal blog known as “The Cricket” on which she accuses the
Plaintiff of cheating on her husband, Campbell Brown, with Defendant’s ex-husband,
Leo Golden. (See Exhibit A).
23. Defendant wrote reviews on Plaintiff’s books on Nile accusing Plaintiff of plagiarizing
the storyline from other writers. (See Exhibit B).
24. Defendant posted on the closed Memories group, “Parents of Boykin Rose Academy”,
accusing the Plaintiff of fraudulently obtaining her Master’s Degree by having a
ghostwriter, Billy Ripley, author her final thesis. (See Exhibit C).

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION


(Defamation)
25. Plaintiff realleges and reasserts the allegations in the above paragraphs as if stated
herein verbatim.
26. Boykin’s test for determining whether a statement or statements are considered
defamation are identical to that of the State of South Carolina.
27. Due to Plaintiff’s status in the community, Plaintiff is considered a Limited Purpose
Public Figure as described in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974).
28. The Statements referenced in paragraphs 22, 23, and 24 (hereinafter “Statements”)
assert or imply the following acts of moral turpitude: (a) that Plaintiff committed
adultery against her husband, Campbell Brown; (b) that Plaintiff fraudulently earned
her Master’s Degree from Ravenswood University; and (c) that Plaintiff has stolen
storylines from other writers and continues and sell and profit off of plagiarized
storylines.

6
29. The Statements, individually and taken as a whole are defamatory because they falsely
impute to Plaintiff adultery, fraud and deceit, and academic corruption, in a manner
ruinous to the reputation and esteem of Plaintiff, professionally, locally, and
nationally.
30. The Statements proximately caused Plaintiff general and special damages in the form
of injury to her reputation throughout the United States.
31. The damages include, but are not limited to, Plaintiff’s scholarly credibility being
compromised, loss of speaking invitations, and loss of book sales.
32. In all academic fields, a scholar’s credibility is demolished by an allegation of stealing
storylines from other writers and fraudulently obtaining a professional degree.
33. The Statements, therefore, severely injured Plaintiff’s reputation as a scholar, writer,
and teacher.
34. By publishing the Statements on the Internet, Defendant knew it would be read by the
general public in the United States.
35. The Statements were in fact read by the members of the general public as a direct,
natural, probable, and foreseeable consequence of Defendant’s publication.
36. The Statements stigmatize Plaintiff as guilty of adultery, academic fraud and deceit
and injure her professional standing.
37. The Statements forced Plaintiff to seek divorce counseling with her husband.
38. The Statements individually and collectively are false, and were false when made. The
Statements are defamatory falsehoods, which Defendant knew or should have known
were false when made.
39. Defendant made the Statements with actual malice and wrongful and willful intent to
injure the Plaintiff.
40. Defendant published the Statements with actual malice and knowledge that the
statements were false, or with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not.
41. Since their posting, the Statements have remained available to Internet users, many of
whom may have made copies of the false and defamatory statements and/or distributed
them by electronic email or other means and/or re-posted them to other blogs and
Internet forums, and Plaintiff has no means of removing these false and defamatory
statements from the Internet.

7
42. Defendant lacked reasonable grounds for making the Statements.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF


WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendant for:
1. General damages in the amount of $100,000.00;
2. Special Damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00;
3. Interest on such damages awarded at the legal rate from date of commencement of
accrual of interest until paid;
4. Cost of this action; and
5. Such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED


Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury as to all issues.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Stephen Rogerson


Stephen Rogerson
The Law Office of Fred Short
1658 Main Street
Sunny, Boykin

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE


SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF BOYKIN
______________________________________________________________________________
Scarlett Brown ) No. CA-2018-34997
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ANSWER

8
) (Jury Trial Demanded)
Layla Golden )
)
Defendant. )
______________________________________________________________________________

ANSWER
Defendant, Layla Golden, by and through counsel, hereby answer Plaintiff’s Complaint.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE


1. As to paragraph 1 in the Complaint, Defendant admits each and every statement.
2. As to paragraph 2 in the Complaint, Defendant admits each and every statement.
3. As to paragraph 3 in the Complaint, Defendant admits each and every statement.

PARTIES
4. As to paragraph 4 in the Complaint, Defendant is without sufficient information to
either admit or deny the allegations contained therein and therefore deny them.
5. As to paragraph 5 in the Complaint, Defendant admits each and every statement.
6. As to paragraph 6 in the Complaint, Defendant admits each and every statement.
7. As to paragraph 7 in the Complaint, Defendant admits each and every statement.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
8. As to paragraph 8 in the Complaint, Defendant admits each and every statement.
9. As to paragraph 9 in the Complaint, Defendant is without sufficient information to
either admit or deny the allegations contained therein and therefore deny them.
10. As to paragraph 10 in the Complaint, Defendant admits each and every statement.
11. As to paragraph 11 in the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every statement.
12. As to paragraph 12 in the Complaint, Defendant admits each and every statement.
13. As to paragraph 13 in the Complaint, Defendant admits each and every statement.
14. As to paragraph 14 in the Complaint, Defendant admits each and every statement.
15. As to paragraph 15 in the Complaint, Defendant admits each and every statement.
16. As to paragraph 16 in the Complaint, Defendant admits each and every statement.
17. As to paragraph 17 in the Complaint, Defendant admits each and every statement.

9
18. As to paragraph 18 in the Complaint, Defendant admits each and every statement.
19. As to paragraph 19 in the Complaint, Defendant admits each and every statement.
20. As to paragraph 20 in the Complaint, Defendant admits each and every statement.
21. As to paragraph 21 in the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every statement.
22. As to paragraph 22 in the Complaint, Defendant admits each and every statement.
23. As to paragraph 23 in the Complaint, Defendant admits each and every statement.
24. As to paragraph 24 in the Complaint, Defendant admits each and every statement.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION


(Defamation)
25. As to paragraph 25 in the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every statement.
26. As to paragraph 26 in the Complaint, Defendant admits each and every statement.
27. As to paragraph 27 in the Complaint, Defendant admits each and every statement.
28. As to paragraph 28 in the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every statement.
29. As to paragraph 29 in the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every statement.
30. As to paragraph 30 in the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every statement.
31. As to paragraph 31 in the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every statement.
32. As to paragraph 32 in the Complaint, Defendant is without sufficient information to
either admit or deny the allegations contained therein and therefore deny them.
33. As to paragraph 33 in the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every statement.
34. As to paragraph 34 in the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every statement.
35. As to paragraph 35 in the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every statement.
36. As to paragraph 36 in the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every statement.
37. As to paragraph 37 in the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every statement.
38. As to paragraph 38 in the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every statement.
39. As to paragraph 39 in the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every statement.
40. As to paragraph 40 in the Complaint, Defendant is without sufficient information to
either admit or deny the allegations contained therein and therefore deny them.
41. As to paragraph 41 in the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every statement.
42. As to paragraph 42 in the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every statement.

10
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, having fully answered the complaint, Defendant Layla Golden prays that this
Court:
1. Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claim for Defamation with prejudice;
2. Require the Plaintiff to reimburse the Defendant for her attorney’s fees and costs
associated with defending this action; and
3. Award all such other relief as the court deems just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED


Defendant hereby demands a trial by jury as to all issues.

Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Anthony Starks
Anthony Starks
The Law Office of Sarah Ogee
3933 Canal Street
Bella, Hollywood

11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF BOYKIN
______________________________________________________________________________
Scarlett Brown )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. CA-2018-34997
)
Layla Golden )
)
Defendant. )
______________________________________________________________________________

DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF SCARLETT BROWN

The deposition of Mrs. Scarlett Brown, the Plaintiff in the above titled cause, taken before Olivia
Stabler on this 25th of October 2018, having been produced and first duly sworn as a witness on
behalf of herself, and after responding “yes” to the oath, testified as follows:

Q: Good Morning Mrs. Brown. Thank you for coming in today. Let’s get started. For the record
can you please state your name?
A: Yes, Scarlett Rhett Brown.
Q: So you are a teacher at Boykin Rose Academy?
A: Yes, I became an English teacher there in 2005.
Q: Can you briefly state your education background?
A: Well, I went to The Usual University to get my degree in English. Then, you know, I really
wanted to work at a prestigious private school like Boykin Rose Academy, so I had to go get my
Master’s degree. I decided the best place to go was close to home, you know since I am married,
so I enrolled at Ravenswood University.
Q: I heard you have to be published to be a teacher at Boykin Rose Academy. Is that true?
A: Yes. Since it is a very prestigious school they require all teachers to be published.
Q: What publications do you have?
A: Well I have published fictional books and books to help English teachers.
Q: Do you make money off of these books?

12
A: Oh yes! That is my biggest money maker. My income from book sales in 2017 was
$150,000.00. I have a huge following.
Q: So tell me how you know Layla Golden.
A: Well, her son, Max Golden, is in my class. And she said all those awful things about me on
the Internet.
Q: How do you know Max Golden?
A: He is one of my English students and a member of the tennis team I coach.
Q: The tennis team has a GPA requirements, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And did Max meet those requirements?
A: He had met the 3.0 requirement until September 2018. He dropped below the 3.0 and the
principal emailed me and told me I had to bench him.
Q: Who is the principal?
A: Campbell Brown.
Q: Brown? Do you happen to be related to Campbell Brown.
A: Yes, he is my husband.
Q: Interesting, and what did you tell Max?
A: Well, I emailed Max and Ms. Golden and told them that Principal Boykin had informed me
that Max had dropped below a 3.0 so he had to be benched for the season.
Q: So these awful things Ms. Golden said about you, when did these statements occur?
A: Well, the first one occurred the day after I emailed Layla and Max. She posted on her blog
saying that I was cheating on my husband with Leo Golden, her ex-husband. Which is not true, I
love my husband very much. Then she wrote a review of my book, Gone with the Aire, on Nile
saying that I stole all of my storylines from someone named Jane Doe. It took me years and hard
work to write all of my books. Finally she posted on the closed Memories page “Parents of
Boykin Rose Academy” saying that I didn't rightfully earn my Master’s Degree because Billy
Ripley wrote my final thesis.
Q: Why do you think Ms. Golden said all of these things?
A: Obviously with it being so close to Max getting benched from the tennis team it was because
she was mad I took him off the team.
Q: And for the record, none of these statements are true?

13
A: No! None of those statements have a bit of truth!
Q: Mrs. Golden accuses you of spending the night in the hotel the Crystal with Leo Golden. Can
you explain why you were in that hotel?
A: Of course, my house had flooded and the water had been cut off so my husband and I decided
to stay at the Crystal for the night to not be inconvenienced in the morning without water. I guess
I happened to walk out of the hotel right after Leo, but I never even saw him there.
Q: Do you know if your husband saw Leo?
A: I doubt it. My husband had a very early meeting that morning and he left the hotel hours
before I did.
Q: So what happened to you after all of these statements were made?
A: Well, I was put on indefinite unpaid leave at the school so that they could check with
Ravenswood University about my Master’s. Then my book sales declined a great deal! My book
that had just come out, The Fault in the Fur, was not selling at all compared to what the
publisher expected. I lost over $100,000.00 between my leave and my book sales declining.
Q: Were you permitted to teach at Boykin Rose Academy again?
A: Of course! After a very private investigation, the school eventually made the decision that I
did not fraudulently obtain my degree or plagiarize my work, but the damage had already been
done.
Q: Okay Mrs. Brown, thank you for being here today. Do you have anything else you would like
to add?
A: No, I don’t think so. Thank you.
[END OF TRANSCRIPT]

14
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF BOYKIN
______________________________________________________________________________
Scarlett Brown )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. CA-2018-34997
)
Layla Golden )
)
Defendant. )
______________________________________________________________________________

DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF LAYLA GOLDEN

The deposition of Mrs. Layla Golden, the Defendant in the above titled cause, taken before
Olivia Stabler on this 25th of October 2018, having been produced and first duly sworn as a
witness on behalf of herself, and after responding “yes” to the oath, testified as follows:

Q: Good Morning Mrs. Golden. Thank you for coming in today. Let’s get started. For the record
can you please state your name?
A: My name is Layla Marie Golden.
Q: What is your occupation Mrs. Golden?
A: I am a style and fashion blogger for Whisper Words.
Q: Whisper Words is in Sunny, Boykin but you live in Bella, Hollywood is that correct?
A: Yes. The job at Whisper Words was just so good, I couldn’t pass it up. I take a 45 minute
train ride from Bella to Sunny every day. My son rides the train with me into school when he is
not with my ex-husband.
Q: In addition to Whisper Words you have your own personal blog?
A: Yes, The Cricket.
Q: How many followers do you have on The Cricket?
A: I have 500,000 followers with each post getting an average of 350,000 views.
Q: What types of things do you talk about on your blog?
A: I post about my life and the things I do, style, and gossip around Sunny.
Q: Speaking of gossip, tell us about your post “Professor Paramour”.
A: What do you want to know?
Q: Were the statements you made in “Professor Paramour” true?
A: I guess it depends on who you ask.
Q: Let me rephrase, do you believe the statements you made in “Professor Paramour” were true?

15
A: Of course I do! My ex-husband was working late nights and never coming home. Then I saw
him walking out of the same hotel as Scarlett Brown, what else was I to think?
Q: Isn’t it possible that they both just stayed in the same hotel?
A: I mean anything’s possible, but he didn’t exactly deny not wanting to sleep with her.
Q: Did you ask Leo Golden or Scarlett Brown about this?
A: Of course not! My ex-husband would have denied it no matter what, and I honestly do not
care to hear what Scarlett Brown has to say about anything. I know he was cheating and it had to
be with her.
Q: Okay, let’s discuss the review of Mrs. Browns book, Gone with the Air, that you made on
Nile. You mention the book Gone with the Fire, have you ever read that book.
A: Oh of course not! I don't waste my time reading garbage.
Q: So then why did you say that Mrs. Brown didn’t write Gone with the Air.
A: Because she didn’t! At least that's what I heard in my book circle. The woman in my circle
said that there were some uncanny details in Gone with the Air that matched Gone with the Fire
and that was where Scarlett had to have gotten her story.
Q: You never read Gone with the Fire to check this allegation out though did you?
A: I haven't even read Gone with the Air why would I read Gone with the Fire? Their titles even
match!
Q: Good Point. Now let's move on to the Memories post you made about Mrs. Brown.
A: Which one?
Q: The one you put on the Parents of Boykin Rose Academy accusing Mrs. Brown on
fraudulently obtaining her Master’s.
A: Well she didn't. So what do you want to know?
Q: Why do you think she did not obtain her Master’s?
A: My best friend’s brother is dating Billy Ripley and I asked him if he knew Scarlett since he
worked at Ravenswood University and he said that he did and he loved her. He told me that he
helped her on her thesis.
Q: So the fact that he said he helped her with her thesis meant he wrote her thesis?
A: Well it could!
Q: Did you ask him if he wrote her thesis?
A: No, but people will do anything if the price is right.
Q: Isn’t it possible that he only helped her with finding sources because he does work in the
library?
A: Like I said before, anything is possible!
Q: Okay Mrs. Golden, thank you for being here today. Do you have anything else you would like
to add?
A: I just want to say that everything I said was true and that Scarlett Brown is just a promiscuous
woman in disguise. I can’t believe the school let her back after that keystone cop half-assed
investigator cleared her; I heard they really didn’t talk to anyone, the just wanted to make it look
like they were trying.

16
[END OF TRANSCRIPT]

17
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF BOYKIN
______________________________________________________________________________
Scarlett Brown )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. CA-2018-34997
)
Layla Golden )
)
Defendant. )
______________________________________________________________________________

DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF BILLY RIPLEY

The deposition of Mr. Billy Ripley, a witness in the above titled cause, taken before Olivia
Stabler on this 25th of October 2018, having been produced and first duly sworn as a witness,
and after responding “yes” to the oath, testified as follows:

Q: Good Morning Mr. Ripley, for the record can you please state your name?
A: Billy James Ripley.
Q: What is your occupation, Mr. Ripley?
A: I am a librarian at Ravenswood University.
Q: And as a librarian do you frequently have students ask for assistance on their thesis?
A: It is not uncommon for a student to ask for my help.
Q: Mr Ripley, have you ever been a ghostwriter for a student thesis?
A: Well I wouldn’t be a very good ghost if I told you that, now would I?
Q: Fair enough, let me rephrase. Mr. Ripley, have you ever written an entire thesis or even part
of a thesis for a student?
A: Well, I really shouldn’t be telling you this, but every once in a while I’ll help a student out a
little bit and help them with the wording of their thesis. You know,, cleaning up grammar,
making sure punctuation is correct, locating sources and making sure the thesis holds up.
Q: Do you remember a student from around 2001-2002 named Scarlett Brown?
A: Oh yeah!! Scarlett, what a great lady, a real smart one too.
Q: Did Mrs. Brown ever come to you asking for help on her Master’s thesis?
A: All the time! I would help her find her resources and help whenever she asked.
Q: Mr. Ripley, did you write Mrs. Brown’s thesis for her?
A: I mean I may have helped her out a little bit.
Q: What does that mean?

18
A: Like I said earlier, anything she needed, I did.
Q: Did Mrs. Brown ever ask you to write anything for her?
A: She was having trouble with the title for her thesis and I may have helped her word it. I am
known for my catchy titles and most of the students come to me for help with their title.
Q: So, is it fair to say that you wrote at least a portion of her thesis for her?
A: I guess you could see it that way… but I swear I was only trying to help!! She typed the
words I was saying and it wasn’t really all that much. She had general concept, I was just helping
her reword it. Only a couple of parts, I swear.
Q: Did she pay you to write her thesis
A: NO! I help all the students I would never ask them to pay me!
Q: Okay, Mr. Ripley, thank you for you for your time. Do you have anything else to add?
A: I just want to say that you got it all wrong, Scarlett is innocent!

[END OF TRANSCRIPT]

19
EXHIBIT A

20
21
EXHIBIT B

22
23
EXHIBIT C

24
25
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF BOYKIN
______________________________________________________________________________
Scarlett Brown ) No. CA-2018-34997
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
)
Layla Golden )
)
Defendant. )
______________________________________________________________________________

COOK, Judge

Plaintiff, Scarlett Brown, brought suit against Defendant, Layla Golden, alleging

Defendant made defamatory statements regarding Plaintiff. In this action, Defendant Layla

Golden filed a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV) after the jury returned

a verdict in favor of Plaintiff on all counts. As explained in greater detail below, this Court shall

DENY Defendant’s Motion and issue a permanent injunction, precluding Defendant from

making such defamatory statements in the future.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Scarlett Brown, is an English teacher and tennis coach at Boykin Rose

Academy in Sunny, Boykin. In addition to being a teacher, Scarlett Brown is an author of both

academic and fictional books. Scarlett Brown obtained her Master’s Degree from Ravenswood

University prior to becoming employed at Boykin Rose Academy.

Max Golden is a student at Boykin Rose Academy and a player on the Academy’s tennis

team. In order to play on the team, the school requires all players to maintain a GPA of 3.0. On

September 20, 2018, Max Golden’s GPA went below a 3.0 and Scarlett Brown had to bench

26
Max Golden for the rest of the tennis season. His mother, Layla Golden, was informed of his

GPA and benching immediately by Scarlett Brown.

On September 21, 2018, Layla Golden wrote an article entitled Professor Paramour on

her personal blog, The Cricket. In the article, Layla Golden accused Scarlett Brown of cheating

on her husband, Campbell Brown, with Layla’s ex-husband, Leo Golden. Layla Golden claimed

she saw the two walking out of the Crystal Hotel together in the morning. The Cricket has

500,000 followers, and each post has an average of 350,000 views.

On September 24, 2018, Layla Golden wrote a review of Scarlett Brown’s book Gone

with the Air on Nile. Layla Golden wrote that Scarlett Brown plagiarized her book from another

author. Gone with the Air had 3,500 reviews on Nile at the time Layla Golden wrote her review.

Two days later on September 26, 2018, Layla Golden wrote on the Memories Page of “Parents of

Boykin Rose Academy” that Scarlett Brown had fraudulently obtained her Master’s Degree. She

claimed that Billy Ripley wrote her Master’s thesis for her. The closed Memories Page “Parents

of Boykin Rose Academy” has over 5,000 members.

After these statements were made, Boykin Rose Academy placed Scarlett Brown on

leave and she saw a tremendous decline in her book sales. Additionally, Scarlett Brown was

forced to go to marriage counseling due to Layla Golden’s blog post. Thereafter, Scarlett Brown

filed this suit against Layla Golden for a claim of defamation. After the filing of this suit, Layla

Golden continued to post statements similar to the ones alleged in the complaint regarding

Scarlett Brown on various websites, including her blog. In the various posts, Layla Golden stated

that nothing could stop her from telling the world the truth about Scarlett Brown, not even the

court system.

27
JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT (JNOV)

“When considering a motion for JNOV a district court must: (1) consider all of the

evidence; (2) in a light most favorable to the non-moving party; (3) drawing all reasonable

inferences favorable to that party; (4) without determining credibility of the witnesses; and (5)

without substituting its choice for that of the jury’s in deciding between conflicting elements of

the evidence.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “A

district court should grant a motion for JNOV only when it is convinced upon the record before

the jury that reasonable persons could not have reached a verdict for the non-moving party.” Id.

DISCUSSION

Defendant requests an Order from this Court granting her Motion for JNOV because no

reasonable person could have concluded that that her statements were made with actual malice,

thus, it was an error to allow the jury to decide the merits of Plaintiff’s defamation claim.

Second, Defendant asks the Court to set aside the jury’s determination that a permanent

injunction would be appropriate.

Each of these issues will be addressed individually below.

I. DEFAMATION

The First Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment,

overlays state defamation laws. N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 276-277 (1964). To

prove defamation under Boykin state law, Plaintiff must show that Defendant made a false and

defamatory statement; the unprivileged publication of the statement was made to a third party;

the publisher was at fault; and either actionability of the statement regardless of specific harm or

the publication of the statement caused special harm. Kunst v. Loree, 817 S.E.2d 295, 302 (S.C.

28
2018). Plaintiff concedes that she is a limited purpose public figure. 1 Public figures may only

recover for defamation if they can prove that the defendant made the statements with actual

malice by clear and convincing evidence. See, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 342

(1974).

Plaintiff has proven, and Defendant has provided no evidence in opposition, that the

statements were defamatory. There is no argument that the three statements made were true;

Scarlett Brown did not cheat on her husband, or fraudulently obtain her Master’s Degree, or

plagiarize her books. Furthermore, there is no question that the publication of the statements

were made to a third party. These statements were posted on Layla Golden’s blog, Nile, and

Memories, all of which have over 3,000 individuals who had the potential to view the statements.

Layla Golden was at fault because her name was on all of the statements and she acknowledges

making the same. Finally, the publication of the statements caused special harm seeing that

Scarlett Brown was put on indefinite unpaid leave, her book sales declined, and she had to go to

marriage counseling. It is clear that the statements that were made were defamatory, therefore,

the Court’s analysis is only concerned with Defendant’s arguments that the statements were not

made with actual malice.

The Supreme Court of the United States defined actual malice as knowledge that a

statement was false or with a reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. N.Y. Times Co. v.

Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 280 (1964). “A reckless disregard for the truth… requires more than a

departure from reasonable prudent conduct.” Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491

U.S. 657, 688 (1989). A public figure plaintiff must be able to prove by clear and convincing

1
At trial, Plaintiff conceded that she is a limited public figure for purposes of determining
whether each the three statements made by Defendant were defamatory. Accordingly, Plaintiff
needed to demonstrate that Defendant’s statements were made with malice as set forth under the
test provided in George v. Fabri, 548 S.E.2d 868 (S.C. 2001).

29
evidence that the statements were made with a “high degree of awareness of [its] probable

falsity.” Vascular Sols., Inc. v. Marine Polymer Techs., Inc., 590 F.3d 56, 60 (1st Cir. 2009).

This analysis focuses on “the defendant’s state of mind at the time of publication.” Kahl v.

Bureau of Nat’l Affairs, Inc., 856 F.3d 106, 118 (D.C. Cir. 2017). The failure to investigate a

statement made does not in itself establish bad faith. St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 733

(1968). “There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact

entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.” Id. at 731.

Defendant contends that the statements were not made with actual malice, but were only

made negligently. Defendant argues that when she saw Leo Golden and Scarlett Brown walking

out of the hotel she posted about it immediately. She argues that she acted carelessly when

immediately posting the article without consulting her ex-husband. She contends that these

actions were a mere failure to exercise reasonable care, and not statements made with actual

malice. Furthermore, Defendant argues that the statements made on Nile about Scarlett Brown’s

book were made negligently simply because she failed to read the book. Defendant not only

failed to read the book, but also relied on an opinion from another person when writing a review

on Nile. Defendant contends that this was merely negligent and not made with a reckless

disregard for the truth. Finally, Defendant argues that her failure to investigate Scarlett Brown’s

Master’s Degree were statements made negligently. Defendant states that her failure to interview

Billy Ripley, who she could contact to ask if he wrote her thesis, constitutes negligence. She

posits that no reasonable person could find her statements to be made with actual malice based

on the record before them and that JNOV would be proper under these circumstances.

Defendant fails to appreciate the ramifications of her actions. The statements made by

Defendant were absolutely made with actual malice. Defendant knowingly made these

30
statements immediately after Plaintiff removed her son from the tennis team. Defendant made

these statements in an attempt to hurt Plaintiff since she took Defendant’s son off the tennis

team. Defendant made the defamatory statements against Scarlett Brown with a high degree of

awareness of their probable falsity. Scarlett Brown being spotted walking out of a hotel with Leo

Golden could mean many different things. It is more than a departure from reasonable prudent

conduct to see two people walking out of a hotel and immediately conclude that they are

engaging in an extra-marital affair. Not only that, reasonable persons would find that there was

plenty of time for Ms. Golden to investigate the story, but instead of doing that, she posted about

it immediately on social media. Ms. Golden did possess a high degree of awareness that the

statement she was making was probably false, which satisfies the requirement of actual malice.

A reasonable person could find upon this record that Defendant made these statements with

actual malice, therefore, JNOV would be improper here.

The same can be said for Defendant’s statements regarding Ms. Brown’s Master’s

Degree and material written in her books. Defendant undoubtedly knew that what she was

posting about Ms. Brown’s books was probably false due to the fact that she did not even read

them. This is more than a departure from reasonably prudent conduct and was done with a higher

culpability than mere negligence. Ms. Golden published the statements with reckless disregard

for the truth in an attempt to ruin the life and career of the woman who benched her son,

preventing him from participating on the tennis team. Moreover, the evidence does not support

the conclusion that Mr. Ripley wrote Ms. Brown’s Master’s thesis for her. If anything, Mr.

Ripley’s deposition transcript shows that he was acting as any librarian at an academic institution

would, which would be to help Master’s students with their research and thesis issues. In fact,

this is exactly what the jury in this case found based upon the record. Thus, Ms. Golden

31
published the statement regarding Ms. Brown’s Master’s Degree with a high degree of awareness

that the defamatory material she was posting was false. In conclusion, Plaintiff has established

by clear and convincing evidence that all three statements made and published by Layla Golden

against her were made with actual malice and the jury’s finding of the same was reasonable in

every way, making JNOV inappropriate in this case.

Accordingly, this Court denies Defendant’s Motion for JNOV with respect to the

defamation claim.

II. PERMANENT INJUNCTION

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall

make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” U.S. Const. amend. 1. The First Amendment

is understood to mean that the government does not have the power to restrict expression

because of “its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. Am. Civil

Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 573 (2002). The Fourteenth Amendment extended the First

Amendment’s restrictions to the actions of the States. N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254,

277 (1964). A permanent injunction that prohibits future statements is a prior restraint, but it is

appropriate where the injunction is narrowly tailored, as is the case here. An injunction that is

narrowly tailored does not constitute an unlawful prior restraint. Brown v. Petrolite Corp., 965

F.2d 38, 51 (5th Cir. 1992).2

This Court may issue a permanent injunction where (1) the plaintiff has prevailed on the

merits, (2) the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury in the absence of injunctive relief, (3) the

harm to the plaintiff would outweigh the harm to the defendants from an injunction, and (4) the

2
During the oral hearing, Defendant argued that the injunction at issue is not narrowly tailored
because “the injunction punishes future conduct that may be constitutionally protected”,
therefore, the injunction violates Defendant’s First Amendment rights. See, Sindi v. El-
Moslimany, 896 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2018).

32
injunction would not adversely affect the public interest. Indian Motorcycle Assocs. v. Mass.

Hous. Fin. Agency, 66 F.3d 1246, 1249 (1st Cir. 1995). This Court has already determined that

the statements made by Layla Golden were defamatory, thus, Plaintiff has prevailed on the

merits, satisfying the first element.

Scarlett Brown would suffer irreparable injury if this Court does not award her injunctive

relief. Prior to trial and after the filing of this action, Layla Golden continued to make similar

statements about Scarlett Brown all over the internet. Layla Golden even stated in one of her

posts that she did not intend to quit making these statements no matter what the court ruled.

Defendant argues that the statements would not cause Plaintiff irreparable injury because a

judgment with damages would suffice for any monetary damages she had lost due to declining

book sales and unpaid leave from the school. Defendant further contends that these were the only

damages Plaintiff received and would not suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not

made. With Layla Golden’s intent to continue these defamatory statements and the effect these

statements have on Scarlett Brown's book profits and the injury to her reputation in the

community, the Court has no choice but to hold that Scarlett Brown would suffer irreparable

injury if the Court does not award injunctive relief.

As to the third element, harm to Plaintiff would outweigh harm to Defendant from the

injunction. Layla Golden would suffer no harm based on a permanent injunction. Defendant

argues that she will suffer greater harm if the injunction is granted since she is a journalist and

these statements would narrow the scope of topics she could write on. Defendant further argues

that the statements cause little harm to her profits and reputation as the injunction would to

Defendant’s journalistic career. However, Layla Golden has no interest in making these libelous

33
statements, and will suffer no injury if forbidden to make them. This balancing test weighs in

favor of Scarlett Brown.

The fourth element also weighs in favor of Scarlett Brown. There is no constitutional

value in the false statements made by Layla Golden. Defendant argues that if the statements are

proven true in the future she will be restrained against saying them, thus the injunction is

unconstitutional. Defendant further contends that the plagiarizing of books and the fraudulent

attainment of Scarlett’s Brown Master's Degree is of public concern. However, these statements

are of no public concern since they are false and the public interest will not be harmed by an

injunction on false statements.

Thus, the Court holds that a permanent injunction is proper in this case.

For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the

Verdict is DENIED. An appropriate Order shall follow.

34
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF BOYKIN
______________________________________________________________________________
Scarlett Brown ) No. CA-2018-34997
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
Layla Golden )
)
Defendant. )
______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

AND NOW, TO WIT, this 22nd day of February, 2019, upon consideration of Defendant’s
Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and Plaintiff’s response thereto, IT IS SO
ORDERED that the Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict is DENIED.

Accordingly, this Court ORDERS THAT Defendant Layla Golden is hereby enjoined from
repeating - orally, in writing, through direct electronic communications, or by directing others to
websites or blogs reprinting Layla Golden’s comments - the following:

1. That Scarlett Brown cheats on her husband;


2. That Scarlett Brown plagiarizes her books; and
3. That Scarlett Brown’s education credentials were obtained fraudulently.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Phillip Cook
The Honorable Phillip Cook

35
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF BOYKIN
______________________________________________________________________________
Scarlett Brown ) No. CA-2018-34997
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) NOTICE OF APPEAL
)
Layla Golden )
)
Defendant. )
______________________________________________________________________________

NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT Layla Golden appeals to the FIFTEENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEAL the Order of the Southern District of Boykin rendered February 22, 2019. The Order
denying a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for Layla Golden is final and
appealable. Layla Golden contends that the District Court erred by:

1. Denying JNOV for Defendant, finding that the statements were made with actual malice.
2. The permanent injunction issued by the District Court is not tailored as precisely as
possible to the exact needs of the case and therefore in violation of Defendant’s First
Amendment rights or, in the alternative, that the permanent injunction fails to meet the
requisite elements set forth in Indian Motorcycle Assocs. v. Mass. Hous. Fin. Agency, 66
F.3d 1246, 1249 (1st Cir. 1995).

/s/ Anthony Starks


Anthony Starks
The Law Office of Sarah Ogee
3933 Canal Street
Bella, Hollywood

36
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy hereof has been furnished to Stephen Rogerson, 1658 Main Street,
Sunny, Boykin by electronic service this 25th day of February, 2019.

/s/ Anthony Starks


Anthony Starks
The Law Office of Sarah Ogee
3933 Canal Street
Bella, Hollywood

37

You might also like