IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE WENDY ROGERS and HAL KUNNEN, husband and wife, and WENDYROGERS.ORG, a principal campaign committee, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE ROSE MROZ, Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of MARICOPA, Respondent Judge, PAMELA YOUNG, an individual; MODELS PLUS INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C. d/b/a THE YOUNG AGENCY, an Arizona limited liability company, Real Parties in Interest. No. 1 CA-SA 19-0262 FILED 12-8-2020 Petition for Special Action from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2018-013114 The Honorable Rosa Mroz, Judge JURISDICTION ACCEPTED; RELIEF GRANTED; REVERSED COUNSEL Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Phoenix By E. Jeffrey Walsh, Dominic E. Draye, Robert A. Hill Counsel for Petitioners Tiffany & Bosco, PA, Phoenix By William M. Fischbach, III, Amy D. Sells, Marcos A. Tapia Counsel for Real Parties in Interest ROGERS, et al. v. HON. MROZ, et al. Opinion of the Court OPINION Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Judge David B. Gass joined. Judge Kent E. Cattani dissented. W E I N Z W E I G, Judge: ¶1 Our constitutional democracy preserves and protects the fundamental rights of free speech and free association. This is especially true in elections, when voters need more information about the candidates who seek to represent them and candidates have nothing but words and ideas in their political contest for hearts and minds. At issue in this defamation action are two political attack ads published by one candidate against her political opponent in a heated congressional primary, which later caused the second candidate’s employer to sue the first candidate and her campaign for defamation and false light. We must determine whether the employer presented enough evidence at summary judgment for reasonable persons to find, with convincing clarity, that the attack ads implied the employer and its founder either committed or supported sex crimes. ¶2 Wendy Rogers, Hal Kunnen and Wendy Rogers for Congress (collectively, “Rogers”) petition for special action relief to reverse the superior court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment on the defamation and false light claims of Pamela Young and the Young Agency (collectively, “Young”). We previously accepted jurisdiction and granted relief, reversing the superior court and promising an opinion to follow. This is that opinion. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 I. Steve Smith: The Talent Agent ¶3 Steve Smith joined the Young Agency as a talent agent in 2007. Based in Phoenix, the Agency represents models, actors and talent of all ages, “ranging from newborn to ninety.” Child models comprise around 50 percent of the Agency’s modeling clients. Pamela Young founded the 1 We recount the evidence in the light most favorable to Young, the non- movant at summary judgment. Phoenix Baptist Hosp. & Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Aiken, 179 Ariz. 289, 293 (App. 1994). 2 ROGERS, et al. v. HON. MROZ, et al. Opinion of the Court Agency and owns it. A “former model and actor” herself, Young authored a how-to book for child models ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals