Date: 01-27-2014

Case Style: Christopher Horvath v. Joya Minard and Aaron Minard

Case Number: CJ-2011-7536

Judge: Dana Kuehn

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: E. Anthony Mareshie

Defendant's Attorney: J. Christopher Davis, Kari Ann Staats and James E. Green for Joya and Aaron Minard

Description: Christopher Horvath sued Joya Minard and Aaron Minard on libel and slander theories claiming:

1. The Plaintiff is a resident of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

2. The Defendant is a resident of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

3. Mr. Minard is a resident of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

4. The incidents giving rise to this cause of action occurred in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

5. Personal jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 12 0.8. § 2004(f) and venue is properly laid pursuantto 120.8. § 133.

FACTS PERTINENT TO ALL CLAIMS

6. The Plaintiff and Defendant were married on September 1,2002.

7. After almost four years of marriage, the Defendant filed an action to dissolve the same on June 7, 2005. In that Tulsa County District Court action, styled Joya Horvath, (Now Minard,), Petitioner v. Christopher Horvath, Respondent, Case No. FD-2005-2203, the Court on November 27, 2006 entered a Consent Decree of Dissolution of Marriage.

8. Since the relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant began deteriorating,
the Defendant, and later Mr. Minard, have carried on a relentless campaign of terror against the Plaintiff. They have baselessly, fantastically, and maliciously accused him of everything from domestic violence to child abuse. None of these accusations has ever been proven in any judicial proceedings, to say the least, corroborated by any governmental investigatory body or court despite the Defendant’s best efforts.

9. In September 2010, the Defendant took her “story” of domestic violence against the Plaintiff to a local television station, KTUL, wherein she publicly proclaimed that the Plaintiff’s alleged violence led her to think she was “alone” and that she “felt like this was just happening to [her] [and] sic there wasWt other people going through same situation people that would help [her].”

10. On November, 29, 2011, the Tulsa World ran a story entitled Jenks Family has Four Generations All Living Under One Roof (the “Tulsa World story”) written by a staff writer named Michael Overall (“Mr. Overall”). This article appeared on page one of both its print and online version of this publication.

11. In the body of the aforementioned Tulsa World story, Mr. Overall reported:
Joya Minard and her daughter, Emma Horvath, fled domestic violence in 2005, bringing four generations into the same house.

12. The Plaintiff was never informed in advanced that this Tulsa World story was
going to be published, or that the allegation of domestic violence in the same would go without his chance for refhtation, or that his eight year old child’s last name which he shares would be mentioned.

13. Tn the comments section of the online version of Tulsa World story, Mr. John Korstad, the Defendant’s father, praised the story by writing: “Thanks for the story Mike!
[Overall]”. He later commented: “Thanks everyone for your meaningfhl comments to us and
eachother!” CJ—2011a0?536

14. The allegations against the Plaintiff are false, unfounded, and have no factual basis.

15. The Defendant’s ongoing attack on the Plaintiff is intended to defame or place him in false light as to his personal and professional relationships in Tulsa County and abroad.

16. At no time in the Defendant’s defamatory and malicious attack on the Plaintiffs character and reputation in the aforementioned KTUL or Tulsa World article reports that he has more visitation with the pasty’s child than when they began. In fact, the Plaintiff, as a result of the District Court’s clear understanding of the Defendant’s actual motives, has been given additional visitation with their child. This includes overnight visitations on two workweek days. This amounts to almost the same parenting visitation as the Defendant.

17. In the Tulsa World artIcle, nowhere is it mentioned by its writer that the Plaintiff has increased his rights of visitation with the party’s child.

18. On several occasions, Mr. Minard has physically threatened and assaulted the Plaintiff. In addition, following a court appearance, Mr. Minard approached the Plaintiff’s spouse and told her that the Plaintiff would “cheat on her”.
19. The Defendant has repeatedly and publicly held herself as a victim of domestic violence and wants to be the poster child of the same. In doing so, she has destroyed the Plaintiff’s and his very small family’s reputation.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

DEFAMATION

For his First Cause of Action against the Defendant, the Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges all of his allegations above as if hilly set forth herein and further alleges and states as follows:

20. The Defendant made false and unprivileged publications and statements to the general public by way of television interviews and local print media reports, including without limitation, that the Plaintiff was a domestic abuser, child abuser, and other particulars that will be revealed over the course of discovery. Such false and unprivileged statements and publications were communicated by, acquiesced to, and endorsed by the Defendant give rise to a slander per se claim against them pursuant to 12 0.S. § 1442.

21. Such defamatory and slanderous publications and statements by the Defendant and were intended to directly injure the Plaintiff.

22. The Defendant’s defamatory and slanderous statements by natural consequence caused the Plaintiff actual damages such as emotional distress, humiliation, and embarrassment.

23. The Defendant knew that such statements and publications would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and that the statements and publications were made by public pleading, and later confirmed by her in the Tulsa World article.

24. The Defendant’s statements and publications were reckless, egregious and malicious entitling the Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiff Christopher Horvath, prays the Court for Judgment against the Defendant and award him compensatory damages in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), award him punitive damages in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), prejudgment and post judgment interest, attorneys’ fees incurred, and any other relief deemed just and equitable.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

FALSE LIGHT

For his Second Cause of Action against the Defendant, the Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges all of his allegations above as if filly set forth herein and ifirther alleges and states as follows:

25. The Defendant publicly accused the Plaintiff by statements and publications of being a domestic and child abuser, with the intention of placing the Plaintiff before the public in a false and negative light.

26. The Defendant knew that such statements and publications would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and that the statements and publications were made on her behalf by the Defendant’s attorney via public pleading acquiesced by her, and later confirmed by her in the Tulsa World article.

27. The Defendant knew the Plaintiff had never been convicted of any violent crime, much less the continued allegations of domestic or child abuse she publicly pronounced to the media. Her statements and publications were made recklessly with actual malice of its falsity and done so as to intentionally and publicly injure the Plaintiff and his family.

28. The Defendant’s statements and publications were reckless, egregious and malicious entitling the Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages from the Defendant and those that will be discovered at the conclusion of discovery.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiff Christopher Florvath prays the Court for Judgment against the Defendant, and award him compensatory damages in an amount in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), punitive damages in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), prejudgment and post judgment interest, attorney fees incurred, and any other relief deemed just and equitable.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

For his Third Cause of Action against the Defendant and Mr. Minard, the Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges all of his allegations above as if fully set forth herein and further alleges and states as follows:

29. The Defendant and Mr. Minard’ s actions were both intentional and reckless. Furthermore, their conduct was of an extreme and outrageous nature.

30. The Plaintiff suffered and experienced emotional distress because of the Defendant and Mr. Minard’s actions and such distress was severe.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiff Christopher Horvath prays the Court for Judgment against the Defendant and Mr. Minard and award him compensatory damages in an amount in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), punitive damages in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), prejudgment and post judgment interest, attorney fees incurred, and any other relief deemed just and equitable.

Defendants appeared and answered as follows:

1. Admitted.

2. Defendant Joya Minard admits she is a resident of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

3. Defendant Aaron Minard admits he is a resident of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

4. Defendants admit venue is proper in the District Court of Tulsa County. Defendants deny all other allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Petition.

5. Admitted.

6. Admitted.

7. Admitted.

8. Denied.

9. Defendant Joya Minard admits that in September 2010 Tulsa television news station KTUL aired a segment on domestic
violence. The segment included an interview of Ms. Minard. The contents of the video recording speak for itself. Defendants deny all other allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the Petition.

10. Defendant Joya Minard admits that on November 29, 2011, the Tulsa World ran an article titled Jenks Family has Four Generations All Living Under One Roof and that the article was written by Michael Overall. She further admits that the story appeared on page one of the Tulsa World. She is without sufficient information to admit or deny whether or how the article was published on the Tulsa World’s website. Defendants deny all other allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Petition.

11. Admitted.

12. Defendants are without information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Petition; therefore, the allegations are denied.

13. Defendants are without information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Petition; therefore, the allegations are denied.

14. Denied.

15. Denied.

16. Denied. The Tulsa World article speaks for itself.

17. Denied. The Tulsa World article speaks for itself.

18. Denied.

19. Defendant Joya Minard admits that she is an advocate for victims of domestic violence. Defendant denies all other
allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the Petition.

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: DEFAMATION

20. Denied.

21. Denied.

22. Denied.

23. Denied.

24. Denied.

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: FALSE LIGHT

25. Denied.

26. Denied.

27. Denied.

28. Denied.

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

29. Denied.

30. Denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND ADDITIONAL AVERMENTS

31. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

32. Some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

33. Any and all the statements made by Defendant Joya Minard regarding Plaintiff have been truthful.

34. The statements upon which Plaintiffs defamation claim is based are statements of opinion, and therefore, cannot form the basis of a legally sufficient defamation claim.

35, The statements of Defendant Joya Minard which are the subject of Plaintiffs defamation claim are privileged under the Oklahoma and United States Constitution.

36. The conduct upon which Plaintiff bases his claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress does not rise to
the level necessary under law.

37. The Defendants reserve the right to amend the Answer and Affirmative Defenses as discovery commences and continues.

WhEREFORE Defendants pray that Plaintiff take nothing by way of his Petition, and that the Court award Defendants judgment in their favor as well as an amount for attorney fees, costs, and any other award allowed under law.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: