Newsdata · Florida Politics

AP Urges Appeals Court to Ignore New Case Law That Could Spell Doom in Defamation Suit

A highly anticipated ruling by the Florida Supreme Court late last week all but ensured the defamation suit filed by Navy veteran Zarachy Young against the Associated Press would get revived on appeal. And just days after telling Florida’s First District Court of Appeal to ignore the AP’s own stylebook in the case, the newswire’s lawyer wanted the court to ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling as well. Those who have kept up with NewsBusters’ coverage of Young’s successful defamation suit against CNN, may recall that the news outlet attempted to get Florida’s 14th Circuit Court to put off progressing the case until the Supreme Court finally issued a ruling on Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Company. Simply known as Perlmutter, the ruling provided new case law on, among other things, how trial-level courts were to apply a clear and convincing evidence standard to punitive damages claims in the pleading stage of a proceeding: The trial court does not act as a fact-finder in a proceeding under section 768.72(1). It must not weigh the claimant’s evidence, meaning that its role is not to decide the truth of the matter. In conducting its review, the trial court must “consider the record evidence and the proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Of course, the allegations contained in the claimant’s proposed amended complaint are not themselves evidence—the whole point of a proceeding under section 768.72(1) is to determine whether the claimant can show reasonable evidentiary support for those allegations. How does did apply to Young’s case? Cutting through the legalese, when Judge William Scott Henry threw out Young case against the AP (and his case against Puck News) he argued against the quality of the evidence presented in the early pleading stage, and directly compared it to what was presented in the CNN case, writing: As discussed above, these decisions are not defamatory, but rather protected editorial choices.’ As such, Plaintiffs cannot rely on the choices made by Defendant to substantiate a claim for punitive damages. Since none of the statements in the Articles were defamatory and Plaintiffs have not proffered evidence of actual malice, express malice, or ill will, hostility or evil intention on the part of Defendant in publishing the Articles, Plaintiffs have not met their threshold burden of proffering sufficient evidence as would support a punitive damage claim in this case. As part of his appeal, Young argued that was one of the reasons the ruling was improper. A flurry of filings in the defamation case against the AP followed the Supreme Court’s Perlmutter decision. After Young’s counsel filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority on Thursday to bring the ruling to the attention of the three appellate judges who heard oral arguments, AP’s counsel Charles D. Tobin shot back the next day with a two-paragraph request for them to ignore the ruling: Appellee The Associated Press (“The AP”) submits this brief response to Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Notice of Supplemental Authority regarding the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Company, No. SC2024-0058 (Fla. June 11, 2026) (“Perlmutter Op.”). Since the trial court did not apply the clear and convincing standard in its ruling related to punitive damages nor did it rely on anything submitted by The AP, the Perlmutter Op. does not apply to Section II of Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Initial Brief or Reply Brief, as their Notice of Supplemental Authority asserts. On Saturday, Young’s counsel requested the court strike the AP’s response, alleging it was an improper motion: “The Response is unauthorized by Rule 9.225, which governs the provision of supplemental authority to the Court following the conclusion of briefing. Further, the Response impermissibly contains argument regarding the authority cited in Appellants’ Notice.” While the Supreme Court ruling in Perlmutter didn’t address the key points of Young’s defamation case (AP’s stylebook, the use of “smuggling,” etc.), it directly pertained to how and why the case was thrown out in the early pleading stage of the proceedings. It was through discovery that Young was able to obtain the evidence for actual and expressed malice. The dismissal of Young’s case could turn out to be a short term victory that only dragged out the case for nearly a year.