DOCUMENT 215

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
11/28/2022 9:54 AM
31-CV-2018-900346.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
ETOWAH COUNTY, ALABAMA
CASSANDRA JOHNSON, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ETOWAH COUNTY, ALABAMA

MOORE ROY, )
MOORE KAYLA, )
Plaintiffs, )
)
V. ) Case No.: CV-2018-900346.00
)
CORFMAN LEIGH, )
NELSON BEVERLY, )
HAGEDORN RICHARD, )
JOHNSON TINA ET AL, )
Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on various motions filed by the Defendants in this
case. The Plaintiffs, Roy Moore and Kayla Moore, have filed a Second Amended
Complaint (hereinafter Complaint) against five Defendants. The Second Amended
Complaint replaces the original complaint and the First Amended Complaint. The
named Defendants are: Richard Hagedorn, Marjorie Leigh Corfman, Debbie Wesson
Gibson, Beverly Young Nelson and Tina Turner. All Defendants have filed Motions to
Dismiss and/or Motions to Strike all or parts of the Complaint. Pursuant to this Court’s
order, each party had an opportunity to submit any additional arguments or legal
authority they have in support of or in opposition to the various motions to dismiss by
the close of the day on October 31, 2022. Defendant Johnson filed her renewed
Motion to Dismiss on October 31, 2022. There was no request for oral argument but all
parties have thoroughly presented their arguments in writing. Pursuant to the Court’s
Preliminary Order, all motions are deemed submitted as filed. By this order, the Court
will address the motions of each Defendant.

The Complaint contains six Counts. Those Counts, in order, are Negligence,
Wantonness, Defamation, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress/Outrage, Civil
Conspiracy and Loss of Consortium. The Loss of Consortium claim relates only to the
Plaintiff, Kayla Moore, and is her sole cause of action alleged in the complaint. As
alleged, the basis for the Complaint are claims of “improper conduct” by the Plaintiff,
Roy Moore, made by three accusers; the Defendants Corfman, Nelson and Johnson.
The Plaintiff, Roy Moore, has denied all of the claims of misconduct. This case is a
Defamation case. Corfman, Nelson and Johnson have either published false
statements about the Plaintiff, Roy Moore, or they have not. Plaintiff contends that the
statements are false. Defendants contend that the statements are true. Because this
is before the Court on Motions to Dismiss, the Court must consider whether the
allegations in the Complaint state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted.
 DOCUMENT 215

The allegations meet that test as to Defamation.

MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STRIKE BY HAGEDORN

Much of the allegations against Hagedorn do not rise to the level of Defamation.
In Paragraphs 61 through 64 of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following:

61. On January 15, 2018, Hagedorn posted on one of his Facebooks

pages a statement on Judge Moore’s legal defense fund that had been
formed in response to a lawsuit that Corfman filed against Judge Moore in
Montgomery County on January 4. “Essentially saying,: Hagedorn wrote,
“please pay for me being a pedophile!!!” (sic)

62. On April 13, 2018, Hagedorn posted on Facebook a picture of Judge

Moore with the words “Child Molester” written across his face and the
caption: “Let’s not forget.”

63. In mid-April, Hagedorn again posted on Facebook a picture of Judge

Moore. Overlaid on the picture in capital letters was the inscription: “My
date called me a pedophile. That’s a big word for a 14-year old.”

64. On April 25, 2018, Hagedorn again accused Judge Moore on

Facebook of being a pedophile. Referring to Judge Moore, he wrote: “I
don’t care if it’s been 30 years or 30 minutes since the crime .. Pedophilia
is Pedophelia (sic) … and they don’t get cured!!! EVER!!”

The Court finds that these allegations are sufficient to withstand a motion to
dismiss and that they adequately allege a cause of action for defamation. The Court
further finds that Counts One, Two and Four are due to be dismissed. This is a
Defamation case and nothing else. As to Count Five, Civil Conspiracy, the only
allegations of a conspiracy regarding Hagedorn deal with his relation to Corfman.
There are a couple of paragraphs in the complaint regarding Facebook posts
supporting Nelson (paragraph 40) and Johnson (paragraph 40) but nothing that rises to
the level of a civil conspiracy. Based on the Court’s ruling on Corfman’s motions, which
are addressed later in this order, the Court also dismisses Count Five.

The remaining Count is Kayla Moore’s claim for Loss of Consortium. In

Slovensky v. Birmingham News Co., Inc., 358 So. 2d 474 (Ala. Civ. App. 1978) the
Alabama Court of Civil Appeals held:

Recently, the Supreme Court of Alabama, in Swartz v. United States Steel

Corp., 293 Ala. 439, 304 So.2d 881 (1974), held that a wife has a cause
of action for the loss of her husband's consortium caused by the tortious
act of a third party. However, such a recovery of consortium is premised
upon a physical injury suffered by the spouse. See Swartz v. United
 DOCUMENT 215

States Steel Corp., supra; Harden v. Alabama Great Southern R. Co., 45

Ala.App. 301, 229 So.2d 803 (1969).
Slovensky v. Birmingham News Co., Inc., 358 So.2d 474 (Ala. Civ. App.
1978)

While the Plaintiff makes excellent arguments regarding the state of the law regarding
loss of consortium, this Court is bound by decisions of the appellate courts.
Accordingly, Count Six, the loss of consortium claim by Kayla Moore is dismissed
because there is no allegation of a physical injury to Roy Moore.

Hagedorn has also filed a motion to strike punitive damages based upon the
Plaintiff’s failure to demand a retraction pursuant to Section 6-5-186 of the Alabama
Code. Plaintiff seems to concede that no written demand for a retraction was made
since his opposition to the motion was his argument that the statements made by
Hagedorn were slander and not libel. However, the statements allegedly made by
Hagedorn meet the definition of Libel as set forth in the Alabama Pattern Jury
Instructions, particularly APJI 23.01 which reads:

Libel is the publication of defamatory matter by written or printed

words or by embodiment in physical form.
Slander is the publication of defamatory matter by spoken words or
transitory gestures.
Broadcasting of defamatory matter by means of radio or television
is libel, whether or not it is read from a manuscript.

The allegations in the Complaint that the Court finds rise to the level of Defamation are
all written. The Court finds, as a matter of law, that the defamatory statements
attributed to Hagedorn are libel. Accordingly, the motion to strike punitive damages is
granted.

MOTIONS TO DISMISS BY CORFMAN

It is undisputed and the Court takes judicial notice that prior to the filing of this
case that Corfman filed a defamation suit in Montgomery County Circuit Court (CV
2018-900017) against Roy Moore alleging that he had made defamatory statements
against her. Moore filed a counterclaim for defamation against her. That case
proceeded to jury verdict and the jury returned a verdict finding no defamation by either
party. The claims in this case against Corfman could have been and should have been
raised in Moore’s counterclaim in Montgomery County. The gravamen of this
Complaint is the allegation that Corfman made false and defamatory statements about
Roy Moore. That issue has been litigated and found adversely to the Plaintiff. No
matter how the claims are pleaded, it is based upon the claim that Corfman lied about
the Plaintiff.

The Court finds that the claims against Corfman are barred by res judicata and
 DOCUMENT 215

issue preclusion.

Similarly, the count by Kayla Moore against Corfman for loss of consortium is
due to be dismissed based on the reasoning for dismissal set out in the portion of this
order dealing with the claims against Hagedorn but for the added reason that the
Montgomery County jury ruled that Corfman did not defame Roy Moore. With no injury,
whether physical or otherwise, there can be no claim for loss of consortium.

Based on the foregoing, all claims against the Defendant, Marjorie Leigh
Corfman, are dismissed and she is dismissed as a Defendant in this case.

MOTION TO DISMISS BY GIBSON

The following are the allegations in the Complaint against Gibson:

19. On August 14, 2017, Gibson posted on social media that Hagedorn
was “right to want outright denouncement from politicians and candidates
for office. Silence, especially about Charlottesville, speaks volumes” in
reference to Hagedorn’s post on August 13, 2017. …

20. Gibson and Hagedorn in their posts revealed their true political
agenda months before the Washington Post [hereinafter referred to as
“WAPO”] allegations….

21. Gibson and Hagedorn revealed their true political agenda to ignore
the truth in an effort to discredit “local politicians and Senate candidates.”

22. On September 20, 2017 Gibson posted a message of support for

Doug Jones on her Facebook page which included an announcement that
Vice President Joe Biden would visit Alabama to campaign for Jones. …
In early 2018 Gibson attempted to qualify as a Democrat to run for a seat
in the Florida House of Representatives.

27. On or about October 13, 2017, Gibson posted a link on her Facebook
page to a New York Magazine article entitled: “Democrats Have a Real
Chance to Beat Roy Moore They Should Take It.” At the time Gibson
made this post, the allegations against Judge Moore had not been made
public, and he was approximately 11 points ahead in the polls over his
Democrat opponent, Doug Jones.

46. On December 4, 2017, (eight days before the election and a mere
four days before Nelson was to confess that she had forged part of the
yearbook inscription she has attributed to Judge Moore), Gibson shared
with the WAPO a 1982 graduation card from Judge Moore that she had
recently discovered in her attic. With full knowledge that Nelson’s
 DOCUMENT 215

yearbook had been forged, Gibson claimed that the handwriting on the
card was similar to that in the yearbook, thus seeking to corroborate
Nelson’s story.

47. In the December 4th WAPO interview, Gibson described a congenial

friendship with Judge Moore that extended over many years but,
according to her, abruptly ended on November 27, 2017, upon her
discovery that the handwriting in a graduation card she received from him
was similar to that inscribed in Nelson’s yearbook. The emotional impact
of the discovery, she stated, was so great that her heart “just sank” and
she began to “sob openly.”

48. Gibson’s story of her emotional epiphany, however, rings hollow. On

October 13, she linked to a story urging Democrats to mobilize to defeat
Judge Moor. Her participation in the original WAPO story of November 9,
she later said, was “to support and corroborate Leigh Corfman and the
other women!” And in another Facebook post, she stated that Corfman
“simply felt that she needed the strength of numbers to move forward. I’m
delighted to have had any supporting role for her.”

50. Evidence indicates that Gibson was strongly motivated to see Judge
Moore defeated. An election day guest column that she penned for Time
Magazine described Judge Moore as “a mortifying caricature of the worst
of conservative values” who was aligned with the Republican “brand of
racism, bigotry, homophobia and misogyny.” She even castigated him for
not celebrating the U.S. Supreme court’s gay-marriage decision.
“Remember the White House in beautiful rainbow lights?” she gushed.
Gibson also criticized Judge Moore for attacking Doug Jones’ support for
abortion. Voters, she hoped, would realize that Doug Jones “is no satanic
baby killer, but rather the supporter of the laws which have been decided
by the democratic process of voting.”

51. Gibson’s radicalism is evident in her support for gay marriage and
abortion. She was supremely motivated politically to see Judge Moore
defeated in the Senate race and pilloried and caricatured him accordingly
in an election-day column destined to have a last-minute effect on the
outcome. Her lofty disclaimer that “I certainly don’t aim to shape the
outcome of their special election today” is not credible and is contradicted
by the entire column, which is an unremitting attack on Judge Moore’s
politics and character for the express purpose of persuading voters to
support his opponent. Indeed, the headline itself forthrightly states
Gibson’s political objective: “Now I’m saying #NoMoore in the Alabama
election.”

52. In her concluding paragraphs, Gibson launches a feminist attack on

“the patriarchal model,” accusing Judge Moore of “sexual misdeeds,”
 DOCUMENT 215

“unwanted Sexual advances,” and being able to skate past accountability

unscathed.” A paramount consideration in the Senate election, she
concluded, must be “the protection of our children.” Should Judge Moore
win, she suggests, “immediate Senatorial expulsion” should follow. These
attacks on Judge Moore defamed his character.

53. The day after the election Gibson rejoiced that “we lit a fire in
Alabama yesterday. So proud of Alabama!”

54. Gibson, like Hagedorn, was a committed partisan dedicated to Judge

Moore’s defeat. When the WAPO won the Pulitzer prize for its reporting
on Judge Moore, Gibson erupted in delight at the triumph of her efforts.
“Tears of joy!” she posted on Facebook. “utter confirmation that we
helped to change the political landscape in the United States for the
better!” she shared her message with Corfman and with Hagedorn who
immediately sough to call her to celebrate.

55. Eager to bolster Nelson’s credibility that had been weakened by

evidence that the writing in the inscription was inconsistent, Gibson
dramatically brought forth her graduation card for the purpose of
confirming that the inscription in Nelson’s yearbook had been written by
Judge Moore.

56. Gibson defamed Judge Moore by calling him a “liar” for supposedly
denying that he had ever known her and also for denying that he had
written in Nelson’s yearbook. Yet Gibson was fully aware that Judge
Moore had admitted knowing her in an earlier interview … and that his
denials were aimed at accusations of sexual misconduct. …

57. Gibson had a deeper agenda – discrediting Judge Moore in the eyes
of the electorate. …

58. …Gibson had posted a message of support for Jones on her

Facebook page. On October 13, she posted a link to an article:
“Democrats Have a Real Chance to Beat Roy Moore They Should Take
It.” …

Most of these allegations against Gibson are not defamatory. They are political
rhetoric protected by the First Amendment. Most of what the Plaintiff complains of is
nothing more than politics and show the Gibson was politically opposed to him and
Republicans, in general. The First Amendment protects her right to do so. What the
First Amendment does not protect, is defamatory statements. In Paragraph 52 it is
claimed that she accused the Plaintiff of sexual misdeeds,” “unwanted Sexual
advances,” and being able to skate past accountability unscathed.” In paragraph 56 it
is claimed that she called the Plaintiff a “liar.” Those statements can be considered
defamatory if proven to be false.
 DOCUMENT 215

Based upon the foregoing and upon the analysis set forth above, Counts One,
Two, Four and Five against Gibson are dismissed. Count Three survives but only as to
the statements alleged in Paragraphs 52 and 56.

Count Six, Kayla Moore’s Loss of Consortium claim is likewise dismissed on the
same grounds as set forth elsewhere in this order dealing with her claim.

Gibson has filed a motion to strike the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for his
election loss. The Court declines to rule on this motion at this time. Plaintiff will be able
to seek such damages as are allowable for defamation if he is successful. Those
damages include out-of-pocket loss, impairment of reputation and standing in the
community, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering if proven by
competent evidence. (APJI 23.15)

MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE BY JOHNSON

In accord with the reasoning in the above paragraphs, Counts One, Two, Four,
Five and Six of the Plaintiffs’ complaint are dismissed as to Johnson. Johnson’s motion
to dismiss Count Three, Defamation is denied. Paragraphs 17 and 42 of the Complaint
allege that Johnson claimed that Roy Moore grabbed her buttocks and that the
statement was false and malicious. Under Alabama’s notice pleading, this is sufficient
to allege a claim of defamation against Johnson.

Johnson has also filed a motion to strike punitive damages due to the Plaintiffs’
failure to demand a retraction pursuant to Alabama Code Section 6-5-186. While the
Plaintiff seems to concede that he did not demand a retraction against Hagedorn and
Gibson, the Court could not find a similar concession in the record as to Johnson.
Accordingly, that issue is a matter for summary judgment and not a motion to dismiss.
The defamation, as alleged by the Plaintiff, is Libel and not Slander making the
retraction statute operative if not retraction was sought.

MOTIONS TO DISMISS BY NELSON

In accord with the reasoning in the above paragraphs, Counts One, Two, Four,
Five and Six of the Plaintiffs’ complaint are dismissed as to Nelson. Nelson’s motion to
dismiss Count Three, Defamation is denied. The allegations in Paragraphs 16, 38, 39
and 46 are sufficient under Alabama’s notice pleading to allege a claim of defamation
against Nelson.

CONCLUSION
 DOCUMENT 215

A good portion of the Complaint contains allegations complaining of political

rhetoric, most of which is protected by the First Amendment. Candidates for office are
often subjected to opposing viewpoints and, for lack of a better term, “dirty politics.”
These days, unfortunately, that’s what you sign up for when you decide to run for
elected office. What you don’t sign up for is having false, defamatory statements made
about you. This case is fairly simple from a legal standpoint. Either the Defendants
made false statements about the Plaintiff, Roy Moore, which damaged his reputation or
they did not. Only the Defendants and the Plaintiff know. If the statements are true, the
Plaintiff’s case fails. If the statements are false, the Plaintiff is entitled to prove
damages.

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows:

1. The motions to dismiss by all Defendants are granted as to Counts One, Two, Four, Five
and Six.

2. The motion to dismiss by Marjorie Leigh Corfman is granted in its entirety.

3. This case shall proceed on the Defamation claims by the Plaintiff, Roy Moore, against
Richard Hagedorn, Debbie Wesson Gibson, Beverly Young Nelson and Tina Turner Johnson.

4. The Court, finding no just reason for delay, hereby directs entry of final judgment as to
the claims being dismissed as well as to all claims against Corfman and the claims by Kayla
Moore against all Defendants. Final judgment is appropriate because this order completely
dismissed all claims against Corfman, removing her as a party and all claims by Kayla Moore,
removing her as a party.

5. The parties shall proceed with discovery. Discovery shall be completed by May 31,
2023.

6. Dispositive motions, if any, shall be filed by June 16, 2023.

7. A trial date will be scheduled upon the Court consulting with the Etowah County Circuit
Clerk and Presiding Judge to determine the availability of a Courtroom and a jury term.

DONE this 28th day of November, 2022.

/s/ JACK W MEIGS

CIRCUIT JUDGE