According to the Nevada Supreme Court’s ruling in Ruth v. Carter, Shannon Ruth sued Nickolas Carter for sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Ruth alleged that Carter sexually assaulted her after a Backstreet Boys concert in 2001, and that he had also assaulted other women. Carter countersued for defamation based on Ruth’s statements accusing him of being a “serial” rapist and abuser.
Ruth filed a motion to dismiss Carter’s counterclaims under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statutes, which require a two-prong analysis. The court determined that Ruth’s statements about Carter assaulting her were not subject to dismissal under the anti-SLAPP statute, allowing Carter’s defamation case to proceed. However, the court dismissed the defamation lawsuit regarding Ruth’s statements about Carter assaulting other people.
The court found that Ruth did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that her statements about Carter assaulting her were made in good faith. Carter presented evidence contradicting Ruth’s account of the events, casting doubt on the truthfulness of her statements. Therefore, Ruth failed to satisfy her burden under the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis.
On the other hand, Ruth successfully demonstrated that her statements regarding Carter being a “known” and “serial” rapist and abuser of multiple people were truthful or made without knowledge of falsity. Carter’s evidence primarily focused on the 2001 concert incident and did not directly address Ruth’s knowledge of Carter’s actions towards others.
In fact, some of Carter’s evidence may suggest that Ruth believed Carter had sexually assaulted others. It is also confirmed, with Carter’s supporting evidence, that other women had accused Carter of sexual assault before Ruth made her statements. Overall, Carter’s evidence does not sufficiently counter Ruth’s affidavit of good faith regarding these statements.
Regarding the second prong, it is concluded that Carter did not prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence for a favorable verdict. Actual malice is demonstrated when a statement is knowingly false or published with reckless disregard for the truth. While Carter presented evidence questioning the truth of other women’s assault claims and witness testimony indicating Ruth’s involvement in a plot against Carter, this evidence alone does not definitively prove actual malice. Additionally, as previously discussed, Carter’s evidence suggests that Ruth did believe in the truth of her statements.
Source link
