Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Missouri-barred attorney Marcy Croft alleged that José Maldonado contacted her for legal guidance about possible claims against his former counsel, Anthony Buzbee and the Buzbee Law Firm. According to Croft, Maldonado later partnered with Buzbee and the firm in a coordinated effort to entrap, intimidate, and discredit her.
Croft alleged that Buzbee published social-media posts accusing her and her agents of illegally soliciting the firm’s clients, offering money to induce frivolous litigation, conspiring to commit barratry, and intimidating the firm’s lawyers. Croft, who resides and practices in Mississippi, asserted claims for defamation, defamation per se, false-light invasion of privacy, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint or stay the federal action in favor of related Texas state-court proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the request for Colorado River abstention because the state proceedings were not parallel and the relevant factors would not support abstention in any event. Although the state cases had been dismissed and were on appeal, the court assumed without deciding that the abstention issue remained ripe because the outcome would be the same either way.
The court held that Mississippi law governed Croft’s false-light and negligent-infliction claims. Texas does not recognize those torts, but Mississippi does, and Mississippi had the most significant relationship to the alleged injuries because Croft lived, practiced law, and allegedly suffered continuing reputational and personal harm there.
The court also found the complaint plausibly alleged defamation and defamation per se by asserting that Buzbee and the firm knowingly published false accusations of habitual illegal conduct that damaged Croft’s reputation. It further held that Croft adequately pleaded a conspiracy among Maldonado, Buzbee, and the firm, and that her intentional-infliction claim could proceed because the alleged campaign to trick, entrap, intimidate, and silence her went beyond the defamatory statements themselves and, if proved, could constitute extreme and outrageous conduct.
Key Takeaways
- Colorado River abstention was unavailable because the state proceedings were not parallel and the abstention factors did not favor surrendering federal jurisdiction.
- Mississippi law governed the false-light and negligent-infliction claims because the alleged personal and reputational injuries were centered in Mississippi.
- Allegations of knowingly false criminal and professional-misconduct accusations were sufficient at the pleading stage to support defamation and defamation per se.
- The alleged coordinated scheme supported plausible civil-conspiracy and intentional-infliction claims independent of the ultimate merits.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that online speech originating in one state may be governed by another state’s tort law when the subject of the statements resides, works, and experiences the alleged injury there. That choice can determine whether particular causes of action are available at all.
The ruling also underscores the limited nature of Rule 12(b)(6) review. The court did not decide whether Croft’s allegations were true; it held that, accepting her well-pleaded allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences in her favor, each challenged claim was sufficiently plausible to proceed.