Understanding Defamation in Arizona

“A defamation action compensates damage to reputation or good name caused by the publication of false information.” (See Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. (1989) 162 Ariz. 335, 341.)

“To be defamatory, a publication must be false and must bring the defamed person into disrepute, contempt, or ridicule, or must impeach plaintiff's honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation.” (See id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Defamation is a false publication that impeaches another's honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or brings the defamed person into disrepute, contempt, or ridicule.” (See Schmitz v. Aston (2000) 197 Ariz. 264, 273.)

“A statement is defamatory if it tends to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him." (See id.)

“A person who publishes a false and defamatory statement concerning a private person is subject to liability if he or she knows that the statement is false and that it defames the other, acts in reckless disregard of these matters, or acts negligently in failing to ascertain the truth or falsity of the statement.” (See id.)

Prima Facie Case

“In order to maintain an action for defamation, the plaintiff must prove that special harm occurred.” (See Restatement subsection 575; Schmitz v. Aston (2000) 197 Ariz. 264, 278.)

“However, if the defamatory statement is actionable per se, injury is presumed and the plaintiff does not have to meet the burden of proving special harm in order to recover nominal or compensatory damages.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“We review de novo dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.” (See Coleman v. City of Mesa (2012) 230 Ariz. 352, 355, ¶ 7; Wasielewski v. the Kroger Co., No. 1 CA-CV 15-0697, at *3 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2017).)

“Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only if as a matter of law plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” (See id.)

“We assume the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences from those facts, but statements of legal conclusions without supporting factual allegations are insufficient to form a basis for relief.” (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “as a defense to an action for defamation, the law recognizes that conduct which otherwise would be actionable is to escape liability because the defendant is acting in furtherance of some interest of social importance, which is entitled to protection even at the expense of uncompensated harm to the plaintiff's reputation." (See Green Acres Trust v. London (1984) 141 Ariz. 609, 612.)

As such, it is also well settled that “the qualified or conditional privilege is a defense to a defamation action. It is based on the social utility of protecting statements required to be made in response to a legal, moral or social duty.” (See id.)

Current as of April 25, 2024 || Updated by Trellis Law Content Team

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information and is subject to change without notice.