On Sept. 10, 2012, Haitian Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe and "prominent businessman" Patrice Baker filed suit in federal court against Haiti-Observateur Group, an online and printed news publication, and Leo Joseph, a Haitian-American journalist who owns and edits Haiti-Observateur. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants published defamatory statements in two articles, titled "La Haitel en vente pour 25 million $?" and "Global Voice et SOWCI ensemble pour ruiner la TELECO." The articles reported on the roles Lamothe and Baker played in the sale of the Haitian telecommunications company Haitel, claiming that the plaintiffs orchestrated or already profited from the sale.

The complaint alleged that 10 specific statements published were false and defamatory, calling the statements "outrageous, scandalous and reminiscent of a tabloid publication." The plaintiffs argued that the statements were defamatory both (1) facially, saying the statements attributed conduct including illegal business practices, racketeering, corruption and conspiracy to the plaintiffs; and (2) per quod, implying degrading conduct when taken in context and thereby exposing the plaintiffs to "distrust, hatred, contempt and obloquy." The complaint alleged that the defendants' statements were "false and conjured to destroy reputations" and had injured the plaintiffs' good names, "stellar" reputations, and standing in their communities, noting the large Haitian population that resides in the Southern District of Florida, where the suit was filed. In filing suit, the plaintiffs sought damages, interests, costs, and attorney's fees.

On Jan. 16, 2013, the clerk entered a default against defendant Joseph because he failed to respond to the complaint. Haiti-Observateur Group had already been dismissed as a defendant in the plaintiff's amended complaint.

On Feb. 5, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for entry of default judgment, attaching a proposed order for the court to use. The court formally issued the same order on Feb. 6. The order stated that the plaintiffs had succeeded on the merits of their defamation claim, that the defendant's statements were made with actual malice, and that the damage to the plaintiffs' reputation constituted irreparable harm. Further, the order permanently enjoined Joseph from publishing any future communications about Lamothe or Baker "in either their professional, personal or political lives."

On March 4, 2013, Joseph filed a motion with the court to set aside its entry of default and default judgment. Joseph claimed that the court's order constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint and that the court was not allowed to permanently enjoin defendants in defamation cases. Joseph also argued that the order contained an error of law because there were no well-pleaded allegations of actual malice, and therefore the plaintiffs failed to state a claim. He argued that the complaint had not alleged clear and convincing evidence of actual malice, but merely presented a legal conclusion not entitled to the assumption of truth, especially in the case of default. Joseph further argued that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a presumption of injury, and that he had not been properly served.

In an opposition filed on March 21, 2013, the plaintiffs claimed that they properly pleaded actual malice because the complaint listed the defamatory statements and alleged that they were made with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Lamothe and Baker claimed there was a presumption of injury because "the defamatory statements made malign their position and professional competence and their fitness to engage in their profession." The opposition also stated that the damages suffered by the plaintiffs fell under a business interference exception to the general rule against injunctive relief and prior restraints on speech, because there was an inference of adverse effects on the plaintiffs'
relationships and difficulty quantifying the actual damages. The plaintiffs also claimed that the defendant was properly served.

On April 9, 2013, the judge issued an order on the motion to set aside the default judgment. The court found that the complaint's assertion that "[d]efendants' statements were made with actual malice" was a legal conclusion and thus did not fulfill the requirements for a well-pleaded allegation. Therefore, the court ordered the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint setting forth the facts that support their allegation of actual malice. Regarding whether the order was an unconstitutional prior restraint, the court found that because the plaintiffs had not asked for an injunction in their complaint, injunctive relief should not have been entered. The order stated, "[T]he Court cautions Plaintiffs that prior restraints on speech are disfavored." The court noted that the plaintiffs sought to enjoin more than just defamatory speech, and "[j]udgments that enjoin the publication of non-defamatory statements are invalid." Because there is a well-settled rule prohibiting injunctions in defamation cases, the court noted, the plaintiffs were required to include specific facts in their second amended complaint that would warrant such "extraordinary relief." The court also found that there was no proof of the plaintiff's assertions that the defendant had been properly served.

The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on April 19, 2013, which asserted that defendant Joseph knew that the allegedly defamatory statements were false, in part because of his business relationship with a shareholder of Haitel, and also because it was common knowledge that Haitel was never sold. Additionally, the second amended complaint included a new claim of tortious interference with advantageous relationships. The plaintiffs claimed that the alleged defamatory statements caused the plaintiffs' business relationships and political counterparts to question whether Baker was being investigated by the FBI and whether Lamothe acted consistently with Joseph's allegations, causing damage to the plaintiffs. The second amended complaint also asked the court to enjoin Joseph from publishing false and defamatory statements concerning the plaintiffs.

On April 25, 2013, Joseph filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Joseph claimed that the second amended complaint did not satisfy the pleading requirements because it did not directly quote the specific statements alleged to be defamatory and the plaintiffs did not attach copies of the relevant articles. Joseph also asserted that the second amended complaint did not allege that Joseph published the statements with actual malice because it did not allege Joseph's subjective knowledge of falsity. Joseph also argued that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for tortious interference, because (1) that claim was based on the same statements as the defamation claim and would fail with it and (2)  the second amended complaint did not properly allege all of the elements of the claim.

The court issued its order on the motion on May 30, 2013. It agreed with Joseph that the second amended complaint was defective because the court could not determine whether the statements were defamatory without the plaintiffs submitting the relevant articles and because the plaintiffs merely summarized the allegedly defamatory statements. The court granted the plaintiffs an opportunity to cure this in a third amended complaint. The court also advised the plaintiffs that some of the summarized statements were not clearly defamatory. Regarding actual malice, the order stated that the second amended complaint's allegation that Joseph had knowledge of the falsity of his statements, while "not a model of clarity," could arguably be sufficient to support the plaintiffs' claim of actual malice. The court thus ordered the plaintiffs to file a more definite statement of the allegation. The court further stated that "a determination on whether the single publication rule bars [the tortious interference claim] is premature at present." The order also stated that the plaintiffs could only amend their complaint "to cure the defects identified in this order," and that the order was the final opportunity for the plaintiffs to cure the defects.

On June 14, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. The third amended complaint asserted, among other things, that Joseph had acknowledged the falsity of his statements in a teleconference and that he acted with actual malice "by utilizing his publication to publish statements which benefit him and his business partners/creditors while having knowledge as to their falsity." The third amended complaint gave exhibit citations for each statement allegedly written by the defendant. It contained no claim for tortious interference.

On June 25, 2013, Joseph filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The motion argued, among other things, that:

(1) the plaintiffs exceeded the scope of leave to amend they were granted, because the third amended complaint "was premised almost entirely upon statements that are different than the ones summarized in the [second amended complaint]";

(2) as to three of the articles identified in the new allegations, the plaintiffs did not satisfy the statutory requirement in Florida that requires a plaintiff to issue a retraction demand before filing a defamation suit;

(3) the alleged statements were not actionable as defamation, because some of the plaintiffs' summaries of alleged statements did not reflect actual statements in the articles, the plaintiffs did not allege what parts of some of the statements were false, and some of the statements did not identify the plaintiffs, were opinion or rhetorical hyperbole, or fair and accurate reports of government information; and

(4) the plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead actual malice, because rather than alleging facts to indicate Joseph's state of mind at the time of publication, they relied upon alleged facts occurring only after the statements were published.

This case concerns the "Innocence of Muslims" video, which portrays the Prophet Muhammad in a highly offensive light and caused protests throughout the world in the fall of 2012.

Cindy Lee Garcia was an actress who appeared in the film. According to the complaint filed on September 19, 2012, Garcia was never informed during the production of the movie of the offensive and inflammatory nature of the film. According to the complaint, "Plaintiff was unaware of the vile content contained in the Film, as the content and overall purpose of the Film was concealed from them at all times . . . ." The complaint further claims that Garcia has received death threats because of the film, was fired from her job, and has been informed by her family that she is no longer permitted to see her grandchildren.

The complaint alleges invasion of privacy under the California Constitution, false light, violation of California's right of publicity statute, violation of California's unfair competition law, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. As against defendant Nakoula and 50 doe defendants allegedly associated with Nakoula, Garcia also alleges fraud and slander. Garcia also sought a temporary restraining order blocking distribution of the film.

On September 20, 2012, the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County denied the temporary restraining order, finding a lack of likely success on the merits.

According to the docket (search for case BC492358) plaintiff Garcia filed a request for dismissal without prejudice, which was granted on September 25, 2012.

Update:

On September 26, 2012, Garcia filed a federal complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, re-alleging fraud, unfair business practices, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against defendant Nakoula and the doe defendants allegedly associated with Nakoula. Garcia also alleges copyright infringement as against all defendants, claiming that Nakoula's contract never addressed copyright ownership, and her performance in the film vested her with a copyright interest in the film. Garcia notes in the complaint that she filed five DMCA "takedown" notices to YouTube on September 24th and 25th, which were not acted upon by the time of the complaint's filing.

On October 17, 2012, Garcia filed an application for a temporary restraining order to take down the video on YouTube. Garcia again argued that her performance was independently copyrightable from the Innocence of Muslims film, and that neither Nakoula nor YouTube had a license to use the performance. Garcia cites the recently-signed WIPO Audiovisual Performances Treaty for this proposition (which is currently in the ratification process) and statements made by the United States Patent and Trademark Office suggesting that actors are currently treated as authors under copyright law. Garcia filed a request for judicial notice with the statements from the USPTO.

On October 18, 2012 the court issued a minute order on Garcia's application, rejecting an ex parte ruling on the injunction and transforming the application to a motion for a preliminary injunction. The court ordered any opposition briefs from the defendants to be filed by October 29, and a reply filed by November 5, before a hearing scheduled for November 19, 2012.

On October 19, 2012, Occupy Los Angeles moved to intervene in the case, in support of the plaintiff. The court denied this motion in a minute order on November 15th.

On October 29, 2012, Google and YouTube filed an opposition brief against a preliminary injunction. Google and YouTube argued that Garcia's brief appearance in the film does not vest her with any copyright interest, and that the lawsuit is a plain attempt to censor the video because of its offensiveness. Google and YouTube also filed an opposition to the request for judicial notice of certain factual circumstances around the film and the USPTO's opinions regarding the WIPO treaty.

On November 5, 2012, Garcia filed a reply to Google and YouTube's opposition to the preliminary injunction. Garcia argued that denial of authorship rights to actors in films contravenes the custom and practice of the film industry, and that First Amendment concerns should not be addressed, due to lack of state action.

On November 28, 2012, Timothy Alger, attorney for defendants Google and YouTube, filed a declaration wherein he stated that he had obtained a copy of a copyright and likeness release filled out by Garcia in relation to this film, which assigns any copyright interest in her performance to Nakoula. After Garcia's attorney expressed doubts as to the authenticity of this document, Alger went to Nakoula (who is referred to in this document by his alternative name, "Mark Basseley Youssef") who signed his own declaration stating that Garcia signed this release.

On November 29, 2012, Garcia filed a request to cross examine both Nakoula and Alger. Google and YouTube filed an opposition to this request on November 30th. The court denied the request to cross examine on the same day, noting that the declarations would not be used for disposition of the pending motion for preliminary injunction. On the same day Garcia filed a request to strike the two declarations, accompanied by a declaration by James Blanco, a handwriting analyst, who concluded based on comparison of specimen handwriting samples that Garcia is not the person who signed the copyright and personality release.

Also on November 30th, the court issued a minute order denying the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that Garcia was unlikely to be able to prove success on the merits of her copyright claim, as the Ninth Circuit case Aalmuhammed v. Lee would suggest that she should not be considered the author of the final film, and to the extent that a copyright interest could be found in the performance it is likely that Garcia gave Nakoula an implied license under the Ninth Circuit case Effects Associates v. Cohen.

On December 21, 2012, Garcia filed a notice of appeal of the preliminary injunction ruling to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit's scheduling order has appellant briefs due January 18, 2013, with appellee's brief due February 15, 2013, or 28 days after service of the appellant's brief.