Graterol-Garrido v. Vega

Background

Maria Herminia Graterol-Garrido brought three defamation claims against Patricia Maria Vega under the court’s diversity jurisdiction. Graterol-Garrido alleged that Vega made defamatory statements on May 16, 2020, in a public Facebook post, Facebook messages sent to the Think+Do Tank Foundation in Australia, and a Twitter post. The statements accused Graterol-Garrido of fraudulent property transfers, hiding assets and income, tax evasion, misconduct in family-court proceedings, encouraging child-support nonpayment, and unlawful employment practices at the House of Language Acquisition.

Vega defended herself by arguing that her statements were true, were opinions, or were made in self-defense. Vega litigated without a lawyer despite the court’s efforts to locate volunteer counsel. The case was tried to the court in a two-day bench trial on November 8 and 9, 2021. The opinion states that the plaintiff was a private figure and that the statements did not concern matters of public concern, so negligence was the applicable minimum fault standard under the court’s analysis of New York law.

Liability Findings

The court found that the statements were written and communicated to third parties. It concluded that the statements identifying specific conduct—such as fraudulent transfers, tax evasion, concealing assets, and fraud on courts—were factual accusations that could be proven true or false, rather than opinions. The court found that the accusations were false and that Vega acted at least negligently. It also found that Vega’s testimony showed she knew, or had reason to know, that some accusations were false. For example, Vega knew that Graterol-Garrido did not know about Vega’s child when some alleged asset transfers occurred, and Vega acknowledged that Graterol-Garrido had not testified against her in family court.

The court separately found that the accusations concerning family-court misconduct, leaving the country to separate the children, encouraging federal child-support crimes, and employing unauthorized workers were defamatory factual statements. The court did not rely on Vega’s statements that Graterol-Garrido was “corrupt,” that her financial maneuvers overwhelmed lawyers, or that she incited violence when deciding liability or damages because those statements could arguably be opinions or otherwise lacked sufficient specificity. The court rejected Vega’s self-defense argument.

Damages and Disposition

The court treated the statements as libel per se, meaning that the statements were in a category for which injury to reputation may be presumed, including statements that accuse someone of serious wrongdoing or harm the person’s professional standing. The court also found actual harm. The Think+Do Tank Foundation investigated the allegations, and although Graterol-Garrido remained on its board, she did not become its chair. She also began disclosing the allegations to potential professional contacts, stopped using social media, and became less willing to pursue some professional opportunities.

Judge John P. Cronan entered judgment for Graterol-Garrido on liability on all three claims and awarded $5,000 in damages. The court did not award punitive damages. It directed Graterol-Garrido to submit a status letter stating whether she continued to seek injunctive relief and the grounds for that request; the opinion did not decide the injunction issue.