Angela Davis v. Donvaugh R. Holland, et al.

Case Number: 2023-000575-CZ

Judge: Not Available

Court: Circuit Court, Macomb County, Michigan

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Mount Clemens Personal Injury Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Not Available

Description: Davis brought this action against defendants, including the Hollands, Darius Williams, and Natalie Whittingham-Burrell, for statements about her and her brand identity as a social media influencer.[2] In July 2021, various news outlets published interviews with Davis and, according to Davis, Williams then shared her personal information on social media and encouraged people to direct harmful, threatening, and demeaning messages and comments to her. In February 2022,

Williams threatened to share Danielle Holland's personal information on social media. On February 19, 2022, Davis and the Hollands conducted a livestream on Instagram to discuss their encounters with Williams. Donvaughn Holland also talked to Davis about a fundraising idea, but Davis declined to participate. Davis alleged that, thereafter, the Hollands made harmful and threatening remarks about her on social media.

Davis's complaint included claims that all defendants were liable for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), tortious interference, and false light, and that Williams was also liable for tortious intrusion and tortious publication. The Hollands moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), which the trial court granted. The trial court ruled that Davis did not present evidence that the Hollands presented her in a false light and she did not dispute that she was a public figure. The trial court further ruled that the Hollands' posts on social media were not defamatory, but merely "immature name-calling and matters of opinion" involving comments by other people. The trial court stated Davis did not show how the Hollands' statements caused severe emotional distress to support her IIED claim or that the Hollands intended to interfere with Davis's business relationship or expectancy for her tortious interference claim.

The Hollands moved for sanctions, including attorney fees, under MCL 600.2591(3)(a)(ii) and (iii), and MCR 1.109(E)(5)(b) and (c), contending that Davis's claims were frivolous. In response, Davis asked the trial court to award her sanctions under MCR 2.114(D). The trial court held a hearing and concluded that Davis's case was devoid of legal merit. According to the trial court, the social media platforms at issue allowed people to "express their opinions, whether good[,] bad[,] or indifferent, but that does not expose everybody who makes a comment or gives an opinion to litigation." The trial court found that the Hollands incurred expenses to defend claims that were not actionable. The trial court ruled that the Hollands' attorney charged a reasonable hourly rate of $300 and it awarded attorney fees totaling $7,997. The trial court then denied Davis's motion for reconsideration.


* * *

Legal issue Did the trial court err in awarding attorney fees based on the finding that the plaintiff's claims were frivolous?

Key Phrases Attorney fees. Social media influencer. Intentional infliction of emotional distress. Tortious interference. Summary disposition.

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: