Jeffrey Pope v. Big Bend Cares Inc., et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10452
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cv-00611-RH-CAS
JEFFREY POPE,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BIG BEND CARES INC.,
ROB RENZI,
Defendants - Appellants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(November 4, 2015)
Before MARCUS, WILSON, and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-10452 Date Filed: 11/04/2015 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Jeffrey Pope is an activist and advocate for the HIV/AIDS community in the
Tallahassee region of Florida. When Pope’s activities angered Robert Renzi, a
Director of Big Bend Cares, Inc., Renzi publicly and falsely told people in the
HIV/AIDS community that he had acquired a restraining order against Pope and
that Pope violated the restraining order. Worried that Renzi’s statements injured
Pope in his avocation of working in the community of HIV and AIDS volunteers
and organizations, Pope filed suit against Renzi and Big Bend, which proceeded to
a trial by jury. At trial, Pope prevailed on his defamation claim, and the jury
awarded him $12,500.00 in punitive damages from each defendant for a total of
$25,000.00. Although the jury awarded no compensatory damages, the special
interrogatory verdict form stated that Renzi’s statements tended to expose Pope to
hatred, ridicule or contempt, or to injure his reputation, and that the statements
were made without a good motive. Renzi and Big Bend then filed this appeal, and
contending that: (1) the district court erred by denying their motion for summary
judgment and motion for judgment as a matter of law because the statements at
issue do not constitute defamation and are privileged; (2) the district court abused
its discretion at trial by admitting evidence of prior bickering between the parties;
(3) the district court erred by failing to reduce the punitive damages award given
the absence of express malice and the absence of an award of compensatory
Case: 15-10452 Date Filed: 11/04/2015 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
damages; and (4) the district court erred by failing to award attorney’s fees or
sanctions for claims that were previously dismissed or abandoned.
Having reviewed the record and considered the facts and legal arguments
presented by the parties in their briefs, we find no error as to any of the issues
presented for our review. Accordingly, we affirm the district court in all respects
related to this appeal.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 15-10452 Date Filed: 11/04/2015 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --