Background
Zachary Young, a U.S. contractor operating through Nemex Enterprises, Inc., sued The Associated Press in Bay County Circuit Court over AP’s reporting that described him as a war profiteer brokering arms deals and exploiting the conflict in Ukraine. Young alleged the reporting was defamatory and caused him reputational and business harm. The trial court, presided over by Judge William Scott Henry, ruled in favor of the AP.
Young and Nemex appealed to Florida’s First District Court of Appeal, represented by Lisa Paige Glass of Glass Law Office, P.A. The AP was represented by Charles D. Tobin and colleagues from Ballard Spahr LLP.
The Court’s Holding
The First District issued a per curiam affirmance with no written opinion. Judges Roberts, Winokur, and Treadwell all concurred. The ruling leaves the trial court’s judgment in favor of the Associated Press intact.
Because the court issued a bare affirmance, it published no independent factual findings or legal analysis. The decision is not yet final, pending any timely motion under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.
Key Takeaways
- The First District unanimously affirmed the trial court’s judgment for the AP without issuing a written opinion.
- The ruling is a per curiam affirmance — it establishes no new precedent and contains no appellate reasoning.
- Young and Nemex Enterprises’ defamation claims against the AP were extinguished at both the trial and appellate levels.
Why It Matters
Although the per curiam format means this decision carries no precedential weight, the outcome reinforces the practical difficulty plaintiffs face in pressing defamation claims against major news organizations in Florida courts. For media-law practitioners, the case illustrates the AP’s successful defense of its Ukraine-conflict reporting against a contractor who claimed the coverage was false and damaging.
Attorneys advising clients who are subjects of investigative journalism should note that bare affirmances at the district court of appeal level — while offering no written rationale to analyze — nonetheless exhaust a plaintiff’s intermediate appellate remedy and leave the trial court record as the operative authority on the merits.