Levitt appeals Twitter defamation case
Attorney Todd Levitt is appealing an Isabella County Court's decision to dismiss his defamation case against a CMU student.
Mount Pleasant attorney Todd Levitt is appealing an Isabella County court's decision to dismiss his defamation case against a Central Michigan University student over a Twitter account that parodied him.
Levitt sued Central Michigan University senior Zachary Felton in June 2014 after the two feuded on Twitter using their respective accounts. Felton's account, "Todd Levitt 2.0," posted tweets that Levitt said portrayed him in a false light. The account also used Levitt's actual logos and photos. The case was dismissed in February 2015, though Levitt warned then he would seek an appeal, which was filed last month in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Levitt is appealing Judge Paul Chamberlain's decision to grant Felton summary disposition, a determination made by a court without issuing a legal opinion. In his written opinion and order to dismiss the case, Chamberlain concluded that Felton's parody Twitter is protected free speech.
"The Supreme Court has held that certain statements are protected, even when provable false," Chamberlain wrote in 2014. "In this case, (Felton's Twitter account cannot be reasonably interpreted as anything other than a parody account."
Levitt's attorney, Steven Mamat, said the court made errors when it failed to consider Levitt's other claims, including false light, intentional infliction of distress, libel, tortious interference with business relations and business defamation.
"The judged ruled that Mr. Levitt is a public figure, so Felton would be entitled to protected speech," Mamat said. "He is not a public figure, and those claims weren't addressed in trial court. He's also associated with a business. We believe (the Twitter account) was done with malice and to put Mr. Levitt and his business in a false light."
In Michigan, the nature of an appeal determines the standard of review. Some appeals may be based on a claim that the judge did not follow the state law. In other cases, an appeal may be based on the court's failure to follow a particular process or rule. Levitt wants the remainder of his case to be heard in trial court, so it can make specific findings on his other claims.
In the appeal, Levitt alleges Felton's account was not a parody, and the the trial court "impermissibly put itself inside Mr. Felton's mind and determined his intent." The trial court "usurped the role of the jury and made factual findings regarding the intent of the statements, and that no person could find these statements to be defamatory."
"(The statements) should have been submitted to a jury to determine what the intent was when (Felton) created his account," Mamat said. "The result of the account created problems for Mr. Levitt. Business has gone down. He has suffered ridicule because of this Twitter account."
Felton said he is not concerned about the appeal.
There has been no date set yet for the case to be heard.
