Opinion
Civil Action 19-2728-KSM
03-31-2020
THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C., et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL HARTLEIB, Defendant.
ORDER
KAREN SPENCER MARSTON, J.
AND NOW, this 31st day of March, 2020, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. No. 72) and Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motiont to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 73), it is ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is FUTHER ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendant's motion is DENIED as to the defamation claim to the extent it is based on Statements No. 9 and 11. Defendant's motion is GRANTED as to the defamation claim to the extent it is based on Statements No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17.
2. Defendant's motion is DENIED as to the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
3. Defendant's motion is DENIED as to the commercial disparagement claim to the extent it is based on Statements No. 9 and 11. Defendant's motion is GRANTED as to the commercial disparagement claim to the extent it is based on Statements No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17.
4. Defendant's motion is DENIED as to the false light claim to the extent it is based on Statements No. 9 and 11. Defendant's motion is GRANTED as to the false light claim to the extent it is based on Statements No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17.
IT IS SO ORDERED.