Interesting analysis of Mazur vs. Szporer:
IIB1a, p.4-5. Szporer’s motion to dismiss on the ground that Mazur is a public (both general purpose and limited) figure: denied.
IIB1b, p.5. Mazur’s claims for punitive damages: dismissed since “Mazur has failed to allege any facts supporting his merely conclusory assertion of actual malice”.
IIB1, p.5. Szporer’s motion to dismiss defamation per se claims based on statements made in the March 20, 2002 article: denied
IIB2, p.5. Szporer’s motion to dismiss defamation per se claims based on statements made in the April 3, 2002 article: granted
IIC False light invasion of privacy
IIC1, p.6. Mazur’s complaint has adequately pled the requisite malice.
IIC2, p.6. Mazur’s claims for false light: dismissed for failure to state a claim
IIC, p.6. Szporer’s motion to dismiss the claim for false light invasion of privacy: denied for the March 20, 2002 article; granted for the April 3, 2002 article
IID Request for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction
IID, p.7. Mazur’s request to compel Szporer to publish a statement in The Siec: denied