LT Character, LLC et al v. Mort

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
LT CHARACTER, LLC, 	§
and CLIFF DEAN, 	§
§
Plaintiffs, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-01053-BP
§
RITA MORT, 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This is a defamation and breach of contract case under Texas law. On October 24, 2024,
Plaintiffs LT Character, LLC (“LT Character”) and Cliff Mr. Dean (“Mr. Dean”) sued a former
independent contractor of LT Character, Defendant Rita Mort (“Ms. Mort”). Plaintiffs allege Ms.
Mort defamed Mr. Dean after he terminated her from her role, and that she violated non-disclosure
and non-circumvention provisions in an agreement she signed on August 3, 2022.
LT Character seeks an award of $78,901.03 for violations of the non-disclosure and non-
circumvention provisions, and Mr. Dean seeks nominal damages of $1.00 for defamation. The
parties waived a jury and instead tried their case to the Court on August 26, 2025. Following trial,
the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. Any finding of fact that
may be deemed to constitute a conclusion of law shall be so considered and adopted as a conclusion
of law. Any conclusion of law that may be deemed to constitute a finding of fact shall be so
considered and adopted as a finding of fact.
FINDINGS OF FACT
LT Character, LLC (“LT Character”) is a limited liability company organized under Texas
law. Its principal place of business is in Tarrant County, Texas. LT Character offers coaching and
Case 4:24-cv-01053-BP Document 106 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 15 PageID <pageID>

2
mentorship programs to schools and young people in the Dallas-Fort Worth area and elsewhere.
LT Character is managed by managers. There are two managers: LaDainian Tomlinson (“Mr.
Tomlinson”) and Mr. Dean. There also are two members of LT Character: Mr. Tomlinson and Mr.
Dean. There are no other members. Mr. Tomlinson and Mr. Dean are co-owners. The evidence
about the exact amount of equity each man owns in LT Character was inconclusive, but the Court
finds that neither owns more than 50%. LT Character was formed on October 7, 2016, when Mr.
Dean filed a certificate of formation with the Texas Secretary of State. LT Character does not have
a company agreement. LT Character has operated at various times under the business names
Tomlinson Center, LT Academy, and LaDainian Tomlinson Preparatory Academy.
Mr. Dean is a member and manager of LT Character. Mr. Dean is also the Central
Executive Officer of LT Character. At one time, Mr. Dean was also a director of Tomlinson’s
Touching Lives Foundation (“the Tomlinson Foundation”). The Tomlinson Foundation is a
nonprofit charitable organization that provides services and leaderships programs to underserved
schools and students. While a director, Mr. Dean had approval authority regarding the use of the
Tomlinson Foundation’s funds.
Ms. Mort was an independent contractor of LT Character. Ms. Mort joined LT Character
in either 2019 or 2020. In her role with LT Character, Ms. Mort worked with various independent
school districts to establish partnerships and facilitate meetings between schools and LT Character.
She also assisted in the company’s sales of its character and development programs. While
working as an independent contractor of LT Character, Ms. Mort also worked for the Tomlinson
Foundation. Ms. Mort still works with the Tomlinson Foundation. In her capacity with the
Tomlinson Foundation, Ms. Mort writes grants, which means that she composes the applications
for grant awards from various organizations. While working as an independent contractor of LT
Case 4:24-cv-01053-BP Document 106 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 15 PageID <pageID>

3
Character, LT Character paid Ms. Mort $3,000.00 a month by and through both LT Character and
the Tomlinson Center. For her current work with the Tomlinson Foundation, the Tomlinson
Foundation pays Ms. Mort $3,000.00 a month. At all times relevant to this case, Ms. Mort did not
have general access or visibility to the Tomlinson Foundation’s financial information or sources
of revenue. Mr. Dean terminated Ms. Mort’s association with LT Character in 2023.
John Palguta (“Mr. Palguta”) is a senior wealth manager employed by MAI Capital
Management (“MAI”). MAI is a financial advising service that prepares tax returns for the
Tomlinson Foundation. LaTorsha Tomlinson (“Mrs. Tomlinson”) is a director of the Tomlinson
Foundation. Mr. Tomlinson and Mr. Palguta are also directors. John Ramos (“Mr. Ramos”) was
an independent contractor for LT Character who worked in developing curriculum.
In 2021, Ms. Mort wrote a grant to the Albertson’s Foundation for use in the Tomlinson
Foundation’s LT Food Zones program. The grant application contemplated that Albertson’s
grocery store gift cards would be purchased and provided to low-income students for food supplies.
That grant application requested $200,000.00. The primary purpose of this grant was to fund LT
Food Zones. The Tomlinson Foundation received a grant award of $200,000.00 in 2022. In 2022,
Mr. Dean asked Ms. Mort to write another grant, explaining that some of the 2022 Albertson’s
Foundation grant money had been spent on software development. In 2022, Ms. Mort wrote
another grant for $100,000.00 from the Alberton’s Foundation. The Tomlinson Foundation
received the $100,000.00 award in 2023.
On August 3, 2022, Ms. Mort electronically signed a non-disclosure agreement with LT
Character 	(“the 	Agreement”) 	that 	contained 	both 	non-disclosure 	and 	non-circumvention
provisions. The Agreement explains that “[i]n consideration for the receipt by the Recipient of []
Confidential Information, the Recipient agrees” to the terms of the Agreement. Under the
Case 4:24-cv-01053-BP Document 106 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 15 PageID <pageID>

4
Agreement, Ms. Mort is prohibited from disclosing LT Character’s confidential information to any
person or entity without LT Character’s prior written consent. Ms. Mort is also prohibited from
copying or modifying any of LT Character’s confidential information without LT Character’s prior
written consent.
The Agreement defines confidential information as:
any information or material which is proprietary to [LT Character],
whether or not owned or developed by [LT Character], which is not
generally known other than by [LT Character], and which [Mort]
may 	obtain 	through 	any 	direct 	or 	indirect 	contact 	with 	[LT
Character]. 	Regardless 	of 	whether 	specifically 	identified 	as
confidential or proprietary, Confidential Information shall include
any 	information 	provided 	by 	[LT 	Character] 	concerning 	the
business, technology and information of [LT Character] and any
third party with which [LT Character] deals, including, without
limitation, business records and plans, trade secrets, technical data,
product ideas, contracts, financial information, pricing structure,
discounts, computer programs and listings, source code and/or
object code, copyrights and intellectual property, inventions, sales
leads, strategic alliances, partners, and customer and client lists. The
nature of the information and the manner of disclosure are such that
a reasonable person would understand it to be confidential and any
other 	information 	that 	both 	parties 	agree 	in 	writing 	is 	not
confidential.
Confidential information under the terms of the Agreement does not include “matters of
public knowledge that result from disclosure by [LT Character],” “information rightfully received
by [Ms. Mort] from a third party without a duty of confidentiality,” “information independently
developed by [Ms. Mort],” “information disclosed by operation of law,” and “information
disclosed by [Ms. Mort] with the prior written consent of [LT Character].”
The Agreement also prohibits Ms. Mort from “attempt[ing] to do business with, or
otherwise solicit any business contacts found or otherwise referred by [LT Character] to [Ms.
Mort] for the purpose of circumventing, the result of which shall be to prevent [LT Character]
from realizing or recognizing a profit, fees, or otherwise, without the specific written approval of
Case 4:24-cv-01053-BP Document 106 Filed 02/02/26 Page 4 of 15 PageID <pageID>

5
[LT Character]” for a period of five years after the end of the Agreement’s term. Ms. Mort agreed
to the Agreement by stating “I approve NDA/Non Circumvent.”
Around this time, Mr. Dean began forming a relationship between LT Character and an
entity called EDforTech, an organization located in San Diego, California that operates STEM-
based programs.
Mr. Palguta testified that in 2023 members of his team at MAI asked Mr. Dean to provide
documentation regarding certain expenses that the Tomlinson Foundation incurred. In September
2023, after Mr. Dean was unable to provide MAI with every desired document, Mrs. Tomlinson
began working with Mr. Dean to locate receipts for certain expenditures. While working to gather
relevant documents, Mrs. Tomlinson discovered expenses incurred by the Tomlinson Foundation
that she believed LT Character should have paid. Mrs. Tomlinson then requested ledgers for the
Tomlinson Foundation from MAI. In examining them she discovered charges and payments that
in her view should not have come from the Tomlinson Foundation’s bank account. These included
funds provided by the Albertson’s Foundation grants that the Tomlinson Foundation spent on
software development.
Mr. Dean authorized approximately $44,000.00 on software development expenses in 2022
and approximately $16,000.00 in 2023. The parties dispute whether use of the Albertson’s
Foundation grant funds to pay for software development was an appropriate use of those funds.
The evidence demonstrates that the primary purpose of the Albertson’s Foundation grants was to
fund LT Food Zones’ gift card purchases, but the evidence does not demonstrate that that was the
sole use for which the Albertson’s Foundation allocated grant money. For example, Mrs.
Tomlinson testified that pursuant to the language of the 2022 Albertson’s Foundation grant, the
grant allocated a certain amount of money to develop a software application that students could
Case 4:24-cv-01053-BP Document 106 Filed 02/02/26 Page 5 of 15 PageID <pageID>

6
use to earn points while participating in the “L Tech Program” and then redeem those points for
food purchases. While the trial testimony was inconsistent regarding whether L Tech is a part of
the for-profit LT Character or the non-profit Tomlinson Foundation, Mrs. Tomlinson testified that
students would earn points in the “for-profit system” to then be used at Albertson’s.
At some point after Mrs. Tomlinson began reviewing the Tomlinson Foundation’s
finances, Mr. Dean sent a text message to her in which he apologized for the Tomlinson
Foundation’s accounting failures and stated that he would probably need to resign. Mr. and Mrs.
Tomlinson proceeded to remove Mr. Dean from the board of directors of the Tomlinson
Foundation.
On September 1, 2023, Ms. Mort sent a text message to Mr. Tomlinson that read in
pertinent part: “I will start sending you the documentation you need and will attest that you put
your trust in Cliff and did not realize that he was misappropriating funds.” The funds to which Ms.
Mort’s message referred were grant money received by the Tomlinson Foundation. At the time
Ms. Mort sent the text message to Mr. Tomlinson, she had no access to the Tomlinson
Foundation’s books and records, and she had not undertaken any kind of investigation of the
Tomlinson Foundation’s books and records.
Ms. Mort was responsible for purchasing the Albertson’s gift cards described previously.
The grant application 	that she wrote in 2021 earmarked 	approximately 	$170,000.00 for
Albertson’s gift cards. Ms. Mort had personal knowledge of how much grant money the Tomlinson
Foundation applied for from the Albertson’s Foundation and approximately how much was set
aside for Albertson’s gift card purchases. At trial, Ms. Mort estimated that no more than
approximately $50,000.00 of the 2022 Albertson’s Foundation grant had been spent before Mr.
Dean tasked her with writing a second grant application to the Albertson’s Foundation. Ms. Mort
Case 4:24-cv-01053-BP Document 106 Filed 02/02/26 Page 6 of 15 PageID <pageID>

7
based this estimate on the fact that she was the only one who purchased the Albertson’s gift cards.
But Ms. Mort did not have personal knowledge of exactly how much money the Tomlinson
Foundation expended on Albertson’s gift cards. She also did not have personal knowledge of how
much money the Tomlinson Foundation possessed in total before she purchased the Albertson’s
gift cards or before the Albertson’s Foundation sent the Tomlinson Foundation its first round of
grant money.
On September 19, 2023, Ms. Mort sent a text message to Mrs. Tomlinson and Mr. Ramos.
In pertinent part, that message read: “Cliff is the only one who could go to prison for
misappropriating grant money.” When questioned about this statement at trial, Ms. Mort explained
that Mr. Dean could have gone to prison for misappropriating grant funds “if he [was] guilty.” But
the evidence does not demonstrate that Ms. Mort had any personal knowledge at the time she made
this statement that Mr. Dean had violated the criminal law. Ms. Mort did not have personal
knowledge that Mr. Dean had misappropriated grant money.
Then, on September 21, 2023, in a text message to Mr. Ramos, Ms. Mort wrote in pertinent
part: “Do you really think Cliff would have told him they [sic] he stole $175J [sic] in grant
money[?]” By this, Ms. Mort meant that Mr. Dean had stolen $175,000.00 of grant money. But
Ms. Mort likewise did not have personal knowledge that this statement was true.
On December 7, 2023, Ms. Mort received a cease and desist letter from LT Character and
Mr. Dean’s counsel that stated that her services with LT Character had been terminated. That same
day, Ms. Mort sent Mrs. Tomlinson a text message that read in pertinent part: “Did I ever send you
a copy of the sexual harassment / hostiñe [sic] work environment complaint I filed against him?”
By this Ms. Mort meant a sexual harassment and hostile work environment complaint against Mr.
Dean. However, at trial, Ms. Mort conceded that she never actually filed such a complaint.
Case 4:24-cv-01053-BP Document 106 Filed 02/02/26 Page 7 of 15 PageID <pageID>

8
Plaintiffs filed this case on October 29, 2024. Mr. Tomlinson did not agree to bringing a
lawsuit against Ms. Mort in LT Character’s name.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Mr. Tomlinson and Mr. Dean are citizens of Texas. Therefore, LT Character is likewise a
citizen of Texas. See Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1081 (5th Cir. 2008). Ms.
Mort is a citizen of Arizona. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. The Court has
diversity jurisdiction over this case.
A. 	Law Relating to Cliff Dean’s Authority to Sue as LT Character
Under Texas law, “an action of a limited liability company not apparently for carrying out
the ordinary course of business of the company must be approved by the affirmative vote of the
majority of all of the company’s governing persons.” Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. § 101.356(b)
(West 2026). As LT Character has two governing persons, an action beyond the ordinary course
of business requires the affirmative vote of both Mr. Dean and Mr. Tomlinson. See Ex. 29; Tex.
Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. § 101.251(b)(1) (West 2026),
Mr. Tomlinson did not consent to LT Character’s suing Ms. Mort. Nor did any evidence at
trial allow the Court to reasonably infer that the filing of this lawsuit was in the ordinary course of
LT Character’s business. As a result, because the filing and prosecution of this action is not activity
within the ordinary course of LT Character’s business, Mr. Dean did not have authority to bring
the breach of contract claim against Ms. Mort in LT Character’s name. See St. Star Designs, LLC
v. Gregory, No. H-11-0915, 2011 WL 3925070, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2011) (finding that filing
a lawsuit is not within the ordinary course of a limited liability company’s business); In re
CorrLine Int’l, LLC, 516 B.R. 106, 138 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2014) (Bohm, B.J.) (“Texas courts and
other courts interpreting Texas law have consistently held that . . . hiring counsel to pursue or
Case 4:24-cv-01053-BP Document 106 Filed 02/02/26 Page 8 of 15 PageID <pageID>

9
defend litigation is not within the ‘ordinary course of business.’” (citing Kaspar v. Thorne, 755
S.W.2d 151, 154 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988, no writ))).
Mr. Dean’s arguments concerning whether he complied with the procedural requirements
under Texas law to bring a derivative action in LT Character’s name are inapposite. Plaintiffs’
pleadings do not allege a shareholder derivative action and the facts do not suggest that Mr. Dean
brought the breach of contract claim against Ms. Mort derivatively, but rather in LT Character’s
own name. See ECF No. 12. This he did not have authority to do. LT Character’s breach of contract
claim against Ms. Mort is dismissed without prejudice.
B. 	Law Relating to Breach of Contract
Even if Mr. Dean had authority to sue in LT Character’s own name, or derivatively as a
manager or member of LT Character, the breach of contract claim against Ms. Mort independently
fails.
The elements of a breach of contract claim are “(1) a valid contract; (2) the plaintiff
performed or tendered performance; (3) the defendant breached the contract; and (4) the plaintiff
was damaged as a result of the breach.” Brooks v. Excellence Mortg., Ltd., 486 S.W.3d 29, 36
(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015, pet. denied). A valid contract in Texas must be supported by
consideration, and if it is not, it is illusory and cannot be enforced. Harris v. Blockbuster Inc., 622
F. Supp. 2d 396, 397 (N.D. Tex. 2009). “Consideration is a present exchange bargained for in
return for a promise. It consists of either a benefit to the promisor or detriment to the promisee.”
Roark v. Stallworth Oil & Gas, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 492, 496 (Tex. 1991).
The text of the Agreement between LT Character and Ms. Mort rooted Ms. Mort’s
obligations “[i]n consideration for the receipt by the Recipient of the Confidential Information.”
Ex. 14, § II. However, the evidence does not definitively demonstrate that from the time Ms. Mort
signed the Agreement (August 3, 2022), to the time her association with LT Character ended, Ms.
Case 4:24-cv-01053-BP Document 106 Filed 02/02/26 Page 9 of 15 PageID <pageID>

10
Mort ever received confidential information. The evidence does not demonstrate that Ms. Mort
had access to algorithms or other confidential information related to software development. Nor
does the evidence demonstrate that Ms. Mort received any kind of confidential information in
satisfaction of the Agreement after she signed it. In fact, Mr. Dean testified that he could not say
what confidential information Ms. Mort received after she signed the Agreement. Tr. 162:7-
162:23. He opined that he was “sure that there [was] information” Ms. Mort received, but he could
not say what. Tr. 162:16-17. The Court finds that Mr. Dean’s testimony is not credible. This is
especially so given Mr. Dean’s other testimony that LT Character contractors who had access to
proprietary information had “access to that information . . . the day they started.” Tr. 160:1-2. Ms.
Mort was such a contractor.
At one point, Mr. Dean opined that Ms. Mort was “prohibited” under the terms of the
Agreement from “using” LT Character’s “sales pipeline,” “contacts,” “the pipeline from the
EDforTech relationship,” and certain “proprietary data” that he alleged some individuals “reverse
engineered” into “web form technology” to “be able to service accounts outside of the LT
Character entity.” Tr. 194:5-19. Without specifics, the Court cannot conclude that Ms. Mort
received any of this potential information at any time after August 3, 2022. And whether the
information Ms. Mort received came to her before she signed the Agreement or afterward is
important because “confidential information . . . provided [to the Recipient] before [s]he signed
[a] non-compete agreement cannot form the consideration for the agreement because past
consideration is not competent consideration for contract formation.” Powerhouse Prods., Inc. v.
Scott, 260 S.W.3d 693, 697 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.).
The Court finds that LT Character’s legal argument and case citations in support of the
proposition that new consideration is not required are unavailing and inapposite. See Jowell v.
Case 4:24-cv-01053-BP Document 106 Filed 02/02/26 Page 10 of 15 PageID <pageID>

11
BioTE Med., LLC, No. 05-21-00166-cv, 2021 WL 4810361, at *11 (Tex. App.—Dallas, no pet.)
(finding competent consideration in “specialized knowledge of and access to Confidential
Information [that] the Company will continue to develop and/or that Grantee will newly receive
from the Company during and after the period of this Award Agreement.” (emphasis added)); id.
(“He got new prospects . . . . We had new and updated trainings.”) (emphasis added)); Wright v.
Sport Supply Grp., Inc., 137 S.W.3d 289, 297 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2004, no pet.) (“Subsequent
to signing the agreement, [the information provider], on a daily basis, made confidential
information 	available 	to 	[the 	recipient].” 	(emphasis 	added)); 	Weber 	Aircraft, 	L.L.C. 	v.
Krishnamurthy, No. 4:12-cv-666, 2014 WL 12521297, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2014) (“It is
undisputed that after they signed the Agreement, Defendants . . . received confidential information.
Further, 	Plaintiff’s 	evidence 	reveals 	that 	Defendants 	continued 	to 	receive 	confidential
information[] throughout their employment with Plaintiff.” (emphasis added)). Mr. Dean’s general
inability to point to confidential information that Ms. Mort received after she signed the agreement
distinguishes this case from those LT Character cites in support.
At most, Mr. Dean explained that LT Character’s relationship with EDforTech had existed
for “almost a year” before September 2023. Tr. 195:7-10. But this testimony does not answer the
important question of exactly when that relationship, if it was confidential information, reached
Ms. Mort. Was it before August 3, 2022, or after that date?
However, even if Ms. Mort’s awareness of this burgeoning relationship between LT
Character and EDforTech could be considered consideration for the Agreement, and even if Ms.
Mort received that information after she signed the Agreement, the evidence does not support Mr.
Dean’s position that Ms. Mort indeed violated the Agreement. The Court finds that there was no
credible evidence that Ms. Mort utilized any confidential contacts, materials, or other information
Case 4:24-cv-01053-BP Document 106 Filed 02/02/26 Page 11 of 15 PageID <pageID>

12
obtained from her time and work with LT Character in violation of the Agreement. Mr. Dean’s
testimony that a nameless “they” “were collectively servicing [LT Character’s] accounts, . . .
contracts, [and] partners” is not credible evidence of how Ms. Mort allegedly violated the
Agreement. Tr. 196:20-21. At most, Mr. Dean testified that Ms. Mort “used our data,” and was
“involved with” certain contacts. Tr. 196:22-197:12. But he could not testify that Ms. Mort herself
reverse engineered the web form he accused someone of generating, Tr. 196:11, did not explain
what data Ms. Mort is alleged to have disclosed, and conceded that he did not know if Ms. Mort
serviced LT Character contracts at the Tomlinson Foundation, while asserting without specifics
that she merely “was involved with those contracts.” Tr. 197:11-12. The Court does not find this
testimony credible. And to the extent Ms. Mort was in contact with certain school districts or
school officials, Mr. Dean conceded at trial that such information was publicly available. Tr.
195:21-24; see also Ex. 14, § II (defining confidential information as that “which is not generally
known other than by the Owner”); id. § II.A (confidential information does not include
“information independently developed by [Ms. Mort]”).
No credible evidence establishes that Ms. Mort disclosed confidential information in
violation of the Agreement. No credible evidence establishes that Ms. Mort copied, modified,
disseminated, or misappropriated confidential information in violation of the Agreement. Nor does
any credible evidence establish that Ms. Mort violated the non-circumvention clause of the
Agreement. While it is altogether likely that the Agreement fails for lack of consideration as it is,
the Court finds that no credible evidence supports LT Character’s position that Ms. Mort breached
the Agreement. Therefore, the Court finds that Ms. Mort did not breach the Agreement with LT
Character.
Case 4:24-cv-01053-BP Document 106 Filed 02/02/26 Page 12 of 15 PageID <pageID>

13
C. 	Law Relating to Defamation
The elements of a defamation claim are: “(1) the defendant published a false statement; (2)
that defamed the plaintiff; (3) with the requisite degree of fault regarding the truth of the statement
(negligence if the plaintiff is a private individual); and (4) damages (unless the statement
constitutes defamation per se).” D Magazine Partners, L.P. v. Rosenthal, 529 S.W.3d 429, 434
(Tex. 2017). “‘Publication’ occurs if the defamatory statements are communicated orally, in
writing, or in print to some third person who is ‘capable of understanding their defamatory import
and in such a way that the third person did so understand.’” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Rincones, 520
S.W.3d 572, 579 (Tex. 2017) (quoting Austin v. Inet Techs., Inc., 118 S.W.3d 491, 496 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.)). “A statement is defamatory if it tends to injure the subject’s
reputation, to expose [him] to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, or financial injury, or to impeach
[his] integrity, honesty, or virtue.” Backes v. Misko, 486 S.W.3d 7, 24 (Tex. App—Dallas 2015,
pet. denied). “A statement that injures a person in [his] office, profession, or occupation is typically
classified as defamatory per se.” Hancock v. Variyam, 400 S.W.3d 59, 64 (Tex. 2013).
“Historically, defamation per se has involved statements that are so obviously hurtful to a
plaintiff’s reputation that the [fact finder] may presume general damages, including for loss of
reputation and mental anguish.” Id. at 63-64.
Mr. Dean contends that Ms. Mort made three defamatory statements about him: (1) “Cliff
is the only one who could go to prison for misappropriating grant money,” Ex. 2; (2) “Do you
really think Cliff would have told him th[at] he stole $175[k] in grant money,” Ex. 9; and (3) “Did
I ever send you a copy of the sexual harassment . . . complaint I filed against [Cliff]?” Ex. 1. See
ECF No. 103 at 15. Regarding these statements, the Court finds the following.
Ms. Mort made each of the referenced statements. Ms. Mort published each statement to a
third party in writing. Each statement is defamatory in nature. Each statement was a statement of
Case 4:24-cv-01053-BP Document 106 Filed 02/02/26 Page 13 of 15 PageID <pageID>

14
fact, not opinion. Mr. Dean is a private individual, not a public figure. Ms. Mort failed to
investigate the truth or falsity of her statements before publication. In so doing, Ms. Mort failed to
act as a reasonably prudent person would.
The evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that Ms. Mort never filed a sexual
harassment complaint against Mr. Dean. The evidence also did not prove that Mr. Dean stole
$175,000.00 in grant money or committed criminal misappropriation. While the evidence reflected
genuine concerns from several individuals over how grant money was spent, Mr. Dean presented
credible evidence that Ms. Mort’s specific defamatory statements were false. E.g., Ex. 49 at 10:15-
17; id. at 11:19-12:1; id. at 17:5-9; id. 103:9-14.
Further, the Court finds that the qualified privilege affirmative defense is unavailable to
Ms. Mort because the evidence of Ms. Mort’s lack of access to Tomlinson Foundation financial
information demonstrated that Ms. Mort lacked a good faith basis to support her allegations of Mr.
Dean misappropriating any money, much less the specific sum of $175,000.00. Nor did Ms. Mort
have a good faith basis to lie about filing a sexual harassment complaint when she admitted at trial
that she did no such thing. See Tr. 58:9. Finally, the Court finds that the statements Ms. Mort made
are defamatory per se in that they accuse Mr. Dean of criminal and sexual misbehavior. In Mr.
Dean’s line of work, Ms. Mort’s statements would have a negative reputational effect.
Therefore, the Court concludes that Mr. Dean established each element of his claim for
defamation against Ms. Mort and finds that Ms. Mort defamed Mr. Dean.
CONCLUSION
The Court concludes that Mr. Dean did not have authority to sue Ms. Mort in LT
Character’s name, but even if he did, either directly in LT Character’s name or derivatively, Ms.
Mort did not breach the Agreement with LT Character. However, Ms. Mort did defame Mr. Dean.
Case 4:24-cv-01053-BP Document 106 Filed 02/02/26 Page 14 of 15 PageID <pageID>

15
Mr. Dean shall have judgment against Ms. Mort for nominal damages of $1.00. The parties shall
file any motions for reasonable attorney’s fees and bills of costs no later than February 17, 2026,
pursuant to Local Civil Rule 54.1 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54.
It is so ORDERED on February 2, 2026.
______________________________________
Hal R. Ray, Jr.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
______________________________________
Hal R. Ray, Jr.
Case 4:24-cv-01053-BP Document 106 Filed 02/02/26 Page 15 of 15 PageID <pageID>