Background
California Governor Gavin C. Newsom sued Fox News Network, LLC for defamation per se after Fox aired an edited clip concerning when Newsom last spoke with President Donald Trump and displayed a chyron stating, “Gavin Lied About Trump’s Call.” Newsom alleged that Fox’s presentation falsely portrayed him as denying that any call occurred, although his public response addressed Trump’s statement about the call’s timing.
Fox moved to dismiss, arguing that litigating in Delaware would impose overwhelming hardship and that the amended complaint failed to state a defamation claim under California law. The Superior Court denied the motion, concluding that dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds was unwarranted and that Newsom plausibly pleaded falsity, a factual rather than protected-opinion statement, and actual malice. It also interpreted California Civil Code § 48a as requiring a timely retraction demand, but not requiring that the demand precede filing suit.
After the Superior Court declined to certify its ruling for interlocutory appeal, Fox asked the Delaware Supreme Court to accept the appeal under Supreme Court Rule 42.
The Court’s Holding
The Delaware Supreme Court refused the interlocutory appeal. Giving due weight to the Superior Court’s assessment, the Court concluded that Fox’s application did not satisfy Rule 42’s strict certification standards.
The Court found no exceptional circumstances warranting immediate appellate review and determined that the potential benefits of review did not outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs of an interlocutory appeal.
The order did not decide the merits of Newsom’s defamation claim, endorse the Superior Court’s substantive rulings, or impose liability on Fox. It left the denial of Fox’s motion to dismiss in place and allowed the case to continue in the Superior Court.
Key Takeaways
- The Delaware Supreme Court refused immediate review of the order denying Fox’s motion to dismiss.
- A ruling that might end litigation if reversed does not, by itself, make a routine motion-to-dismiss decision appropriate for interlocutory review.
- The Supreme Court did not resolve whether Newsom can ultimately prove defamation; it ruled only that Rule 42’s demanding standard for an interlocutory appeal was not met.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces Delaware’s restrictive approach to interlocutory appeals. Even when a trial-court ruling addresses an important issue and reversal could potentially terminate a case, immediate review requires exceptional circumstances and benefits sufficient to outweigh the resulting delay, disruption, and cost.
For the parties, the practical consequence is that Newsom’s defamation action proceeds in the Delaware Superior Court, where Fox may continue contesting the allegations and preserve appropriate issues for review after a final judgment.