Questions In this case, the question is whether the actions of the defendant Priscilla Ann Kidd constitute a libel to the plaintiff Donald J. Rhoads? Whether the actions of the defendant Priscilla Ann Kidd constitute a violation of privacy to the plaintiff? Whether the actions of the defendant Priscilla Ann Kidd constitute an identity theft to the plaintiff. Whether the actions of the defendant Baker college, Amy Disonia, Tom Pokora, and Jowanne Carrigan constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress and libel to the plaintiff?
Fact
On July 19, 2006, the plaintiff Donald J. Rhoads filed his complaint against defendant Priscilla Ann Kidd, after Kidd obtained an ex-parte Personal Protection Order (PPO) against him. The plaintiff Rhoads accused that the defendant Kidd alleged defamatory in support of her PPO, as well as passing out a leaflet to her neighbors with the plaintiff’s picture and identifying information that warned them to watch out for him. Simultaneously, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant alleged violations of his personal privacy, because she has retrieved plaintiff’s…show more content… The petition for the PPO that Kidd obtained was a pleading in a judicial proceeding. Official portion of legislative proceedings, judicial proceedings and executive actions are generally privileged. Also, according to the case Oesterle v. Wallace, statement made by judges, attorneys, and witnesses during the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged if they are relevant material, or pertinent to the issue being tried. Kidd’s PPO has met this standard, so Kidd’s statements were absolutely privileged. It is an immunity from libel suits granted to government officials and other based on remarks uttered or written as part of their official duties. Therefore, there was no basis in law for plaintiff’s defamation claim which premised on the allegations Kidd made in her petition for a
