Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 17, 2019

Conness v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc.

Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Docket
0:19-cv-00574
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
5
Motion to DismissCivil ProcedureTort
In one sentence

In Conness v. CBS Broadcasting, Judge Wright dismissed the Connesses’ defamation, negligence, and emotional-distress claims without prejudice for failing to state viable claims.

Who this affects

Melissa Conness and Amy Conness’s claims against CBS Broadcasting, Inc. were dismissed without prejudice; CBS obtained dismissal of its motion-targeted claims.

What happened

In Conness v. CBS Broadcasting, Melissa Conness and Amy Conness sued CBS Broadcasting, Inc., over a news report about their daycare. They alleged the report falsely suggested that they were involved in sexual assault or other wrongful conduct, asserting defamation, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The court held that the report did not identify the Connesses as the people accused of wrongdoing, either directly or by implication. It also found that the report’s statement identifying them as the daycare owners was true. Because the other claims were based on the same facts as the unsuccessful defamation claim, the court dismissed them as well.

Judge Wright granted CBS’s motion to dismiss and dismissed Counts I, II, and III without prejudice. The opinion therefore did not bar the Connesses from refiling those claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Conness v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. · No. 0:19-cv-00574
Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Date
Dec. 17, 2019

Background

Melissa Conness and Amy Conness owned and operated a daycare business in Lakefield, Minnesota. They sued CBS Broadcasting, Inc., doing business as WCCO-TV, over a September 10, 2018, local news report. The report stated that a daycare in Lakefield had its license revoked after a child had been sexually assaulted by an adult, described the revocation order, and stated that the daycare’s owners, Melissa Conness and Amy Conness, had closed the daycare.

The Connesses alleged that the report falsely implied that they were involved in sexual assault or molestation and had engaged in illegal, immoral, criminal, or wrongful conduct. They asserted three claims under Minnesota law: defamation, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. CBS moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. CBS submitted the online publication and documents it said were public records from the Minnesota Department of Human Services.

Defamation claim

The court explained that a Minnesota defamation claim requires a false statement of fact about the plaintiff that harms the plaintiff’s reputation. The statement must be understood as referring to the plaintiff, either directly or by fair implication.

The court concluded that the Connesses did not adequately plead this identification requirement. Apart from the final sentence identifying them as the daycare owners, the report did not explicitly or implicitly refer to them. The court found that the final sentence was true and therefore not defamatory. It also concluded that a reader would not necessarily understand the report’s alleged defamatory statements to be about the Connesses. The court therefore granted CBS’s motion to dismiss Count I.

Negligence and emotional-distress claims

The court determined that the negligence and negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims were based on the same facts as the failed defamation claim. Relying on Minnesota authority concerning negligent infliction of emotional distress, and applying the same reasoning to the negligence claim, the court held that dismissal of Counts II and III was warranted.

Disposition

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright granted CBS Broadcasting, Inc.’s motion to dismiss. The court ordered that Counts I, II, and III be dismissed without prejudice, meaning the order did not bar the Connesses from refiling those claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.