Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...The Florida Legislature has also provided certain requirements for plaintiffs to meet in order to bring a defamation suit, which serve to protect First Amendment interests. Under Florida's defamation law, a prospective plaintiff is required to give a media defendant notice five days before initiating a civil action. § 770.01, Fla....

...laintiff's failure to do so, final judgment for defendants was entered. The major part of plaintiff's argument, upon this appeal, is directed to the constitutionality vel non of Chapter 16070, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1933, now appearing as Sections 770.01 and 770.02, Florida Statutes, same F.S.A., by which it is provided as follows: "770.01 * * * Before any civil action is brought for publication, in a newspaper or periodical, of a libel, the plaintiff shall, at least five days before instituting such action, serve notice in writing on defendant, specifying the article, and the s...

...Is Section 770.02 unconstitutional in that it (a) denies punitive damages to a plaintiff under the circumstances therein specified and (b) limits the recovery under such circumstances to "actual damages"? *414 2. If the provision as to notice contained in Section 770.01 is construed as requiring such notice as a condition precedent to suit, is this provision constitutional? As to question No.1, plaintiff contends that the statute has "changed the amount of damages recoverable, and thus has unconstitutionally impaired appellant's rights." There is no merit to this contention....

...o Sports Stadium. Said newspaper articles recited activities incident to rock concerts performing in the Orlando Sports Stadium. After filing their initial complaint on September 15, 1971, appellants, in an apparent attempt to comply with Fla. Stat. 770.01, [1] by letter dated September 29, 1971, forwarded to certain appellees a notice and retraction demand as required by that statute....

...National Broadcasting Co., 19 N.Y.2d 453, 280 N.Y.S.2d 641, 227 N.E.2d 572, "We look for the reality, and the essence of the action and not its mere name." A contrary result might very well enable plaintiffs in libel to circumvent the notice requirements of Fla. Stat. 770.01 by the simple expedient of redescribing the libel action to fit a different category of intentional wrong....

...ants' last complaint or their failure to further amend as permitted by said order, but direct our attention to appellees' claim that the cause of action is insufficient due to appellants' failure to serve the written notice requirement of Fla. Stat. 770.01 before instituting this libel action....

...le 1.15, 1954 Rules of Civil Procedure, as per amendment effective January 1, 1966", Volume 30 F.S.A., author's comment page 272. With respect to appellants further argument concerning its compliance with the written notice requirement of Fla. Stat. 770.01 subsequent to filing suit and the unconstitutionality of said requirements, we find the language of the Florida Supreme Court in Ross v....

...ion precedent to suit, such provision is unconstitutional. Neither of these contentions can be sustained". Aside from the aforementioned deficiency in appellants' complaint an examination of appellants' notice letter purportedly in compliance with F.S. 770.01 reveals same to be insufficient....

...on of appellees. The final judgment here under review is affirmed. WALDEN, C.J., concurs. DOWNEY, J., specially concurs, with opinion. DOWNEY, Judge (specially concurring). I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion. NOTES [1] Fla. Stat. 770.01....

...urtis Duncan's head ... but the State Attorneys' office was given three different explanations of who was feeding Curtis Duncan at that time. One of which involved Coffey's son. On February 13, 1981, Boyles's attorney complied with the provisions of section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1979), by writing a letter to the station manager of Channel 9 demanding a retraction....

...Justice THOMAS for the reasons therein announced. It appears that there was additional justification for the dismissal of the complaint in that the notice served on the appellees, purportedly in compliance with Chapter 770, Florida Statutes 1953, fails to meet the requirements of the act. F.S. § 770.01, F.S.A., reads as follows: "Before any civil action is brought for publication, in a newspaper or periodical, of a libel, the plaintiff shall, at least five days before instituting such action, serve notice in writing on defendant, specifyi...

...e moral laws or of his professional code of honor." Nothing appears in the instant case to take it out of the rules above quoted. *554 I believe also that the notice which was sent to the appellee herein was sufficiently specific to comply with F.S. § 770.01, F.S.A....

...lity and solvency; and that when construed as the common mind would naturally understand them, the said publications necessarily imputed the plaintiff with the commission of a crime. The plaintiff further alleged notice to the defendants pursuant to Section 770.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and failure to retract....

...We do not decide whether Nezelek's complaint sufficiently sets out the substance of the alleged defamatory spoken words as there is no indication that this issue was considered. If the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action because Nezelek did not allege compliance with Section 770.01, we find no error....

...Though the demand letter became part of the record when attached to plaintiff's motion to strike part of appellees' motion to dismiss, the letter was neither incorporated into nor attached to the complaint. In Ross v. Gore, 48 So.2d 412 (Fla. 1950) the supreme court held that compliance with the demand for retraction of Section 770.01, is a condition precedent to suit....

...State, Department of Transportation, 386 So.2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Corbo v. Miami Daily News, Inc., 371 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.120(c). Nezelek's response to appellees' motion to strike the pleadings indicates compliance with Section 770.01, however, no showing or averment of compliance was made in a pleading....

...Because the complaint was dismissed with leave to amend as to the five quoted statements in the demand letter of August 9, 1979 and because there is no indication in the record to the contrary, we must assume that the demand notice itself was determined to be in compliance with Section 770.01....

...We recede, therefore, from this court's holding in Hulander v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 364 So.2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So.2d 459 (Fla. 1979) to the extent that Hulander, supra, may bar a single amendment of a demand for retraction made pursuant to Section 770.01 after the filing of complaint....

...lled upon to review the final order terminating litigation in a case. [6] Though the trial court stated in its order of March 6, 1980 that the matter was before the court on the defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice for failure to comply with Section 770.01, Florida Statutes and failure to allege a cause of action for libel, the court did not specify the bases for its order and dismissal could have been for any one of several grounds raised by the defendant....

...We decline to discuss the other issues raised by the motion to dismiss, i.e., whether the appellant is a public figure, whether actual malice must be pleaded, and whether punitive damages may be awarded in an action for libel and slander. [7] Though Section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1979) has been held constitutional, Ross v....

...1974). [9] The cases cited as authority by the court in Hulander, supra, generally support the policy of liberal amendment of pleadings and are not authority for denying a plaintiff the opportunity to amend his demand notice in order to comply with Section 770.01, if he otherwise is able to state a cause of action....

...As indicated, this Court has chosen to reconsider the merits of Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment pursuant to Judge Ryskamp's invitation to do so, the Miami Herald Defendants' and News America's Motions for Reconsideration, AP's Motion in Limine concerning Fla.Stat. *1472 Ann. Section 770.01 (West 1986) and Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure....

...Plaintiff's reply to this letter of February 8, 1983 was the institution of this lawsuit on or about February 24, 1983. AP has moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff's letter of February 1, 1983 is insufficient under Fla.Stat.Ann. § 770.01 (West 1986), a condition precedent to maintaining the action. Ross v. Gore, 48 So.2d 412 (Fla.1950). This Court agrees. Section 770.01 states: 770.01....

...r slander, the plaintiff shall, at least 5 days before instituting such action, serve notice in writing on the defendant, specifying the article or broadcast and the statements therein which he alleges to be false and defamatory. *1474 Fla.Stat.Ann. § 770.01 (West 1986). [2] Plaintiff, relying on Bridges v. Williamson, 449 So.2d 400, 401 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1984) and Davies v. Bossert, 449 So.2d 418, 420 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984), first argues that § 770.01 is not applicable to AP, and therefore no notice was even required. Both cases state that § 770.01 is not applicable to a non-media defendant and was therefore held not to be applicable to private individuals whose alleged defamatory statements were republished by the media ( Bridges ), or to a citizen's band radio operator ( Davies ). The express language of the statute reads "newspapers, periodicals or other medium." This Court is of the opinion that the language "other medium," should be read broadly to incorporate wire services like AP. Assuming the Court held § 770.01 to be applicable to AP, Plaintiff argued that under Nezelek Inc....

...k's performance as a general contractor. Nezelek can certainly be read for the proposition that when the cause of action for defamation is based on oral statements, it is sufficient that the Plaintiff set out the substance of the spoken words in her § 770.01 notice with sufficient particularity, although not verbatim, because the very nature of a broadcast means the Plaintiff does not have the printed statements available at the time of the original demand for retraction....

...ught to be sued upon. Plaintiff's Complaint, Exhibit I. The very article is attached to Plaintiff's Complaint as Exhibit J, and reflects that it is in fact an AP story. On January 21, 1983, notice was also sent to Defendant News America, pursuant to § 770.01, referring to an allegedly defamatory article in The New York Post of November 5, 1982....

...Clearly, on the date Plaintiff sent notice to AP she had actual notice of at least two other articles which she claimed defamed her, and could have specifically referred to them and quoted from them verbatim in her notice to AP, yet failed to. In this situation, the Court finds as a matter of law that § 770.01 has not been complied with....

...etter of February 8, 1983, to refer to the September 29, 1983 Miami Herald article and the November 5, 1983 New York Post article, and quote verbatim from them; because the fact is that Plaintiff was capable of doing so. Having failed to comply with § 770.01, Plaintiff's claim against *1475 AP must fail, since the statute is a condition precedent to her maintaining the suit....

...Clearly, the thrust of Plaintiff's objection go to her being associated with "sexual escapades" that took place at Brian *1484 Richards' apartment; seances are not mentioned at all, and therefore cannot now be the basis for an objection regarding this article for failure to comply with Fla.Stat. Ann. § 770.01....

...issue, a different result might have been reached. There is some irony in the Court's result. Some statements that are arguably false and defamatory and sent by AP to others *1485 are not actionable against AP for Plaintiff's failure to comply with § 770.01; those same statements are not actionable against the Defendants which republish them because they are protected by the wire service defense....

...the presuit notice requirement of section 768.28, Florida Statutes (1997), involving the statutory waiver of sovereign immunity, see Kuper v. Perry, 718 So.2d 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), and the statutory notice requirements in defamation actions under section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1997)....

...at 501. Reference to this rule confuses the analysis. Orlando Sports is better understood as not allowing a plaintiff to use creative pleading to bypass the notice requirement imposed by the legislature as a condition precedent to a libel action. See § 770.01, Fla....

...itchen, Willie Pounsel, James Cowart, Lawrence Poindexter, and Al Bridges. Some of the statements allegedly made by appellees were republished in a newspaper. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint because appellants failed to comply with section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1981). The trial court granted the motion but allowed appellants twenty days to amend their complaint to allege compliance with section 770.01....

...We hold chapter 770, Florida Statutes (1981), does not apply to nonmedia defendants even when alleged defamatory statements made by a nonmedia defendant are republished by the media. Therefore, we find the trial court erred in requiring appellant to comply with section 770.01. Section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1981), provides as follows: Notice condition precedent to action or prosecution for libel or slander....

...damages, as well as to save them the expense of answering to an unfounded suit for libel. After Ross, the statute was amended to include civil actions for slander against broadcasting stations. Ch. 76-123, Laws of Fla. (1976) (codified as amended at § 770.01, Fla....

...The rules of stare decisis do not require this court to follow federal court decisions that construe Florida's substantive law. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). Although the federal court in Laney extended the application of section 770.01 to include nonmedia defendants, we believe the legislature did not intend such an extension....

...*419 Ferrell & Ferrell, and Milton Ferrell, Miami, for appellant. Frigola, Devane & Wright and Alfredo Frigola, Marathon, for appellee. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT [*] and FERGUSON, JJ. FERGUSON, Judge. This appeal questions the applicability of Section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1983) — which requires a complainant to give a defendant five days' prior notice for the purpose of apology or retraction before an action for libel or slander may commence — where allegedly defamatory statements w...

...on told plaintiff that a number of listeners told him that they understood the broadcast to mean that plaintiff had been caught stealing. The trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss on grounds that plaintiff failed to plead compliance with Section 770.01, which is a jurisdictional condition precedent to the right to maintain the action. Reliance was placed on Laney v. Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 910 (S.D.Fla. 1982) for the finding that "F.S. 770.01 requiring five days' notice to the defendant before a libel or slander suit is brought applies to all defendants, `media' and `non-media'." We disapprove of the Laney holding on authority of Ross v....

...The main issue in Ross was whether the statute was discriminatory in that it permitted media defendants to avoid punitive damages by publishing a retraction or apology for libelous statements while not affording the same privilege to non-media defendants. The court did not hold, as does Laney, that Section 770.01 applies to media and non-media libelees alike, but recognized that the unambiguous language of the statutory condition precedent applies only to media defendants....

...in 1950 referred only to newspapers and periodicals, the court reiterated that "[t]he provision for retraction is peculiarly appropriate to newspapers and periodicals, as distinguished from private persons." 48 So.2d at 414. It reasoned further that Section 770.01, which requires a written notice only in suits against newspapers and periodicals, contains a valid classification which has a substantial relation to the purpose of the legislation....

...The basis for the classification was held to be, in essence, the public interest in the "free dissemination of news," and the reasonable likelihood of occasional error as a result of the tremendous pressure to deliver the information quickly. The earlier version of Section 770.01, which was construed in Ross v....

...Section 770.04 refers specifically to the civil liability of an "owner, licensee, or operator of a radio or television broadcasting station, and the agents, or employees of any such owner, licensee or operator." Since no other section of Chapter 770 uses the language "other medium" as found in Section 770.01, we can infer reasonably that the legislature intended that term to include television and radio broadcasting stations. There is no logical reason to suppose that Section 770.01 contemplates any form of medium not covered by other sections of the chapter. In the absence of legislative history, we can look to earlier enactments and other sections of the present Chapter 770 to determine the intent and meaning of the words "or other medium" in Section 770.01....

...United States, 252 U.S. 140, 40 S.Ct. 237, 64 L.Ed. 496 (1920) and State ex rel. Szabo Food Services, Inc. of North Carolina v. Dickinson, 286 So.2d 529 (Fla. 1973). *421 All of the Florida state court cases which interpret the notice requirement of Section 770.01 involve newspapers, periodicals or broadcasting companies (either radio or television)....

...Robert Feldman of Law Offices of Philip M. Berman, Pompano Beach, for appellees. PER CURIAM. Randall and Debra Cook appeal from the trial court's final judgment dismissing their complaint for failure to comply with the statutory notice requirement under section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1976)....

...dismissed the entire case without prejudice to refile after adequate notice had been effected. Appellants raise several issues on appeal. They claim that the trial court erred: by finding appellants' demand letters for retraction insufficient under section 770.01; by addressing appellees' untimely ore tenus motion to dismiss; by dismissing their negligence count along with the libel count; and by entering partial summary judgment in favor of appellees on appellants' claim of fraudulent transfer. The dispositive issue on appeal is whether appellants' retraction letters satisfied the notice requirements of section 770.01. Section 770.01, Florida Statutes, provides: Notice condition precedent to action or prosecution for libel or slander....

...te any damage caused. We hold that the combination of the three letters, the two letters from appellants' counsel and the Mangus letter, adequately "specified with particularity" the alleged defamatory statements to satisfy the notice requirement of section 770.01....

...However, a well-pled complaint survives a motion to dismiss “even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of these facts is improbable, and ‘that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.’ ” Id. at 556 , 127 S.Ct. 1955 . III. Legal Analysis A. Florida’s Single Action Rule — Notice Under Fla. Stat. § 770.01 Defendants first argue that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over counts 5-9 because Plaintiffs failed to comply with the pre-suit notice requirement set forth in Florida Statute § 770.01....

...or slander, the plaintiff shall, at least 5 days before instituting such action, serve notice in writing on the defendant, specifying the article or broadcast and the statements therein which he or she alleges to be false and defamatory. Fla. Stat. § 770.01 ....

...or failure to comply with § 770.0’s five-day notice requirement. Relying on Alvi Armani Medical, Inc. v. Hennessey, Defendants argue that the publication of the statements on Defendants’ web pages falls within the “other medium” language of § 770.01....

...Plaintiffs suggest that Alvi Armani is inapposite and ask the Court to deny the request to dismiss this case for failure to give the pre-suit notice. The parties’ arguments have unnecessarily confused the issue. Whether the phrase “other medium” in § 770.01 includes the internet is not the critical issue here, and, in this Court’s view, not even open for debate. That the internet constitutes a “other medium” for the purposes of § 770.01 should be well-settled....

...the print or the online version of the paper. The medium through which Defendants made the statements then, is not dispositive here. Rather, the issue is whether these Defendants are the type of parties contemplated to receive pre-suit notice under § 770.01. There is no dispute in Florida about who is entitled to receive pre-suit notice under § 770.01....

...The Florida Supreme Court has explained that one of the objectives of the statute was to afford newspapers and periodicals an opportunity to make a full retraction to correct errors and avoid exposure to punitive damages. Ross v. Gore, 48 So.2d 412 (Fla.1950). Accordingly, § 770.01 does not extend to nonmedia defendants....

...use of action-defamation. Mot., p. 2. Other torts that arise from the allegedly false and defamatory material must be considered as part of the same claim, i.e., a single action. Because the Court declines to dismiss the defamation claim for lack of § 770.01 notice, the Court need not discuss the single-action rule in depth here....

...2505.) Discussion: Count I (Defamation) Conover moves for dismissal of Count I (Defamation) based on three factors. First, Conover states that Plaintiffs have not provided prior written notice of the alleged defamatory statements to Conover before bringing suit, as required by Section 770.01 of the Florida Statutes....

...Third, Conover argues that, on the face of the Complaint, the Press Release was a privileged communication protected by the neutral reporting and fair reporting privileges of Florida. A demand for retraction of allegedly libelous material is often a prerequisite to an action for defamation. Fla.Stat. § 770.01; see Time v....

...lar claim included herein have occurred or been waived or excused." ( See Am.Compl. ¶ 43.) Whether or not the Plaintiffs demanded a retraction is an issue of fact left for resolution at trial. Moreover, resolution of this question is irrelevant, as section 770.01 of the Florida Statutes is not applicable to non-media defendants....

...1468, 1474 (S.D.Fla.1987) (citing Bridges v. Williamson, 449 So.2d 400, 401 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1984) and Davies v. Bossert, 449 So.2d 418, 420 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984)). [1] Conover asserts that it qualifies as a media defendant and accordingly enjoys the privilege *1338 extended by section 770.01....

...It does not logically follow that because Conover sent copies of the Press Release to various parties, including major South Florida news media, Conover itself qualifies as media. [2] However nebulous the definition of media, it is certain that Conover does not fall under its rubric. As such, Section 770.01 is not applicable....

...ies resulting from it are merely items of damage arising from the same wrong," See Easton v. Weir, 167 So.2d 245 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1964). "A contrary result might very well enable plaintiffs in libel to circumvent the notice requirements of Fla.Stat. 770.01 by the simple expedient of redescribing the libel action to fit a different category of intentional wrong." Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc....

...Conover's Motion for summary Judgment as to Count II is hereby DENIED as moot. It is further ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Conover's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Claim for Punitive Damages be, and the same is hereby, DENIED. NOTES [1] In 1982, this Court held that 770.01 applies to all defendants in civil actions for libel or slander....

...910, 912 (S.D.Fla.1982) In the absence of specific instances of Florida's intent to the contrary, the Court was unwilling to impute a restrictive reading of the statute. See id. 532 F.Supp. at 912. Subsequently, however, Florida courts have construed 770.01 to apply only to media defendants ( Davies going so far as to assert that its use of the phrase "other medium" only applies to television and radio broadcasters, 449 So.2d at 401), and the Court is therefore bound by this interpretation....

...tation. [2] Also, FDLE agents had told Jones that Botero was the subject involved and that Ortega held power of attorney for Clemwood, N.V., and lived on the property mentioned in the testimony. In compliance with the mandatory notice requirement of section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1981), Ortega's attorney wrote WPLG, denying the allegations and stating that Ortega would be filing a defamation suit against WPLG....

...While the subcommittee was not provided with Ortega's name, it is undisputed that Ortega is attorney-in-fact for Clemwood, N.V., and lives on the property mentioned in the testimony, i.e., the property formerly comprising the Nixon White House. [3] Section 770.01 requires that a plaintiff first notify the broadcaster and specify the alleged defamatory statements before an action for libel or slander can be brought against the broadcaster....

...ibel or slander, the plaintiff shall, at least five days before instituting such action, serve notice in writing on defendant, specifying the article or broadcast and the statements therein, which he alleges to be false and defamatory. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 770.01....

...The language of the provision is not dispositive of the issue before the Court. The provision simply requires that a plaintiff, prior to bringing a civil action for publication or broadcast in a newspaper, periodical or other medium, "serve notice in writing on the defendant...." Fla.Stat.Ann. § 770.01....

...tigate actual damages or avoid the assessment of punitive damages. This finding, combined with the Court's findings concerning the generality of the statute's language and the lack of dispositive precedent, leads the Court to hold that Fla.Stat.Ann. § 770.01 applies to all defendants in civil actions for libel or slander....

...[9] Said defendant was not given the requisite notice, however, and the Court thereupon dismisses this case by reason of plaintiff's failure to comply with a condition precedent to bringing suit. Plaintiff is free to refile this action upon compliance with Fla.Stat.Ann. § 770.01....

...NOTES [1] The Florida Keys Keynoter placed the title "Monkeyshines over Island Facility" directly above the letter in large print. [2] Under the "Erie Doctrine", however, purely procedural matters are subject to federal and not state law. The notice provision of Fla.Stat. Ann. § 770.01, however, has such a significant impact upon the extent and nature of both the harm and damages in a libel suit that it clearly is applicable in a federal diversity action of this sort....

...n. 4, Count V is sufficient under Dominguez to withstand dismissal on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. As to Count VII for defamation, the Defendant moves to dismiss based upon the Plaintiff's failure to comply with the notice requirement found in Fla.Stat. § 770.01....

...Defendants jointly moved to dismiss the complaint and alternatively to strike certain portions of the complaint. The grounds of the motion to dismiss were: (1) that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, (2) that the notice pursuant to F.S. 770.01, F.S.A....

...Davidson, or Tippen Davidson. Said motion was granted, but the judgment *548 appealed does not indicate upon which ground. For convenience we will discuss the grounds in inverse order. As to the second and third grounds of the motion, we first note that Section 770.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides that "Before any civil action is brought for publication, in a newspaper * * * of a libel, the plaintiff shall * * * serve notice in writing on defendant, specifying the article, and the statements t...

...s not reflect service of the notice upon the other defendants, they insist that the complaint should be construed as affirmatively indicating that service of the notice was not made on them. We do not agree with that contention. It is seen that F.S. § 770.01 F.S.A., supra, required the plaintiff to perform certain acts as a condition precedent to the right to maintain the action, and performance must be pleaded by the plaintiff in order to state a cause of action....

...and the statements therein [in the publication]," which the plaintiff alleges to be false and defamatory. In Adams v. News-Journal Corporation (Fla. 1956), 84 So.2d 549, 553, the Florida Supreme Court held that in order to meet the requirements of F.S. 770.01, F.S.A....

...the Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice filed herein by the Defendant, SUNBEAM TELEVISION CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, d/b/a WCKT-TV. In support of the Motion the Defendant claims that the Plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1976) which is a prerequisite to instituting an action against a broadcaster for libel. Section 770.01, Florida Statutes, states: `Before any civil action is brought for publication or broadcast, in a newspaper, periodical or other medium of a libel or slander, the plaintiff shall, at least five days before instituting such action, serv...

...itten notice to Department of Insurance required by section 768.28(6), and time for compliance expired); Mancini v. Personalized Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc., 702 So.2d 1376, 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (finding that failure to provide notice under section 770.01 prior to commencing libel suit required dismissal)....

...Thus, dismissal as to both counts was proper for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e). Dismissal of the libel and slander count was proper also on the ground that appellant did not show adequately that he complied with the section 770.01, Florida Statutes requirement that a plaintiff must "serve notice in writing on the defendant specifying the article or broadcast and the statements therein which he alleges to be false and defamatory" before instituting his action for libel or slander....

...of a justice of the peace but that the constable had not served the warrant on appellee. On October 11, 1971, five months after the publication of the article appellee's attorney wrote to appellant the following letter: "Pursuant to Florida Statute 770.01, you are hereby notified that a civil action for libel will be brought against The Gannett Florida Corporation in the Circuit Court of Volusia County Florida, after five days from the service of this notice for the publication in the newspaper...

...Carmen Montesano." Appellant responded to the above letter, declining to publish a retraction. Appellee thereupon filed the suit which culminated in the entry of the judgment here appealed. Appellant contends that appellee's notice is insufficient under Florida Statute 770.01....

...t. Petersburg on various dates towing messages which Gifford asserted were defamatory. In its order of dismissal the circuit court found that the complaint failed to allege a cause of action and that Gifford had not complied with the requirements of section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...It would appear that this letter, which did not fully identify the allegedly defamatory statements, provided insufficient notice. See, e.g., Hulander v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 364 So.2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So.2d 459 (Fla. 1979). [2] However, this court has held that section 770.01 does not apply when an action is brought against a non-media defendant....

...We denied appellees' motion to dismiss on this basis. Having reviewed the entire record as well as the briefs submitted by both parties, we now conclude that the circuit court's order is in fact a final order and therefore appealable. Compliance with section 770.01, where necessary, is a condition precedent to maintaining an action, and one cannot satisfy the statute by providing notice subsequent to filing the complaint....

..."The very need to allege and prove willful, wanton or malicious conduct to sustain an action against [an employee] makes the case non-actionable against the county." Kirker v. Orange County, 519 So.2d 682, 684 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). [3] The second amended complaint alleges compliance with the notice requirement laid down by section 770.01, Fla....

...d by Yahoo!. The messages posted on the Yahoo! board are disseminated among millions of people every day who use the Yahoo! bulletin board system to either communicate or to publish information regarding a subject of their choosing. Florida Statutes section 770.01 requires that, in certain circumstances, notice must be given to a potential defendant before a libel action can be filed: Notice condition precedent to action or prosecution for libel or slander.— Before any civil action is brought f...

...e instituting such action, serve notice in writing on the defendant, specifying the article or broadcast and the statements therein which he or she alleges to be false and defamatory. (emphasis supplied). Section 770.02 allows the defendants to whom section 770.01 is applicable the right to avoid punitive damages by the timely publication of a correction, apology, or retraction. In its original form, section 770.01 applied only to newspapers and periodicals....

...that earlier version of the statute. Id. In 1976, the statute was amended to include reference to "broadcasts" in addition to "publications" and to "other mediums" in addition to newspapers and periodicals. That was the last substantive amendment to section 770.01....

...Cutter Laboratories, Division of Miles, Inc., 714 So.2d 351, 355 (Fla.)(quoting *1175 Conley v. Boyle Drug Co., 570 So.2d 275, 284 (Fla.1990)), review dismissed, 725 So.2d 1108 (Fla.1998). Here, we need not reach the issue of whether the internet is a "medium" within the meaning of section 770.01....

...Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of the law in denying the motion to dismiss. The petition for writ of certiorari is, therefore, denied. GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The denial of a motion to dismiss for failure to provide the presuit notice required by section 770.01 is a proper subject for certiorari review....

...Franz of Weiss & Handler, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant. John J. Anastasio, Port St. Lucie, for appellee. PARIENTE, BARBARA, J., Associate Judge. The legal question posed by this petition for writ of certiorari is whether a columnist for a local newspaper is entitled to pre-suit notice pursuant to section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1995)....

...Plaintiff claims that the publications were libelous because defendant allegedly implied that plaintiff was the same corporation as a defunct and discredited corporation known as Air Engineers. Defendant's motion to dismiss asserted plaintiff's failure to comply with the statutory notice requirements of section 770.01, which she claims was a condition precedent to plaintiff's suit for libel. Failure to comply with the notice provision of section 770.01 requires dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. See Gifford v. Bruckner, 565 So.2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Davies v. Bossert, 449 So.2d 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Cummings v. Dawson, 444 So.2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). If section 770.01 applies, defendant is entitled to certiorari relief from the trial court's refusal to dismiss the complaint for the failure to meet this pre-suit requirement. See Bridges v. Williamson, 449 So.2d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); see generally Citron v. Shell, 689 So.2d 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Section 770.01, the notice provision, and section 770.02, the retraction provision, grant valuable rights by allowing certain defendants in defamation actions to avoid punitive damages by the timely publication of a correction, apology or retraction. The ability to print the correction, apology or retraction is dependent upon first receiving notice of the alleged defamatory statement as required by section 770.01....

..., of a libel or slander, the plaintiff shall, at least 5 days *1378 before instituting such action, serve notice in writing on the defendant, specifying the article or broadcast and the statements therein which he alleges to be false and defamatory. § 770.01 (emphasis supplied). Plaintiff successfully argued to the trial court and continues to assert in response to defendant's petition, that section 770.01 does not apply to defendant....

...between defendant and any other columnist. To the extent that plaintiff asserts that the statute is applicable only to actions against the newspaper itself, as opposed to the individuals writing for the newspaper, this restrictive interpretation of section 770.01 is not supported by the language of the statute....

...nd conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for resorting to the rules of statutory interpretation and construction." Ross v. Gore, 48 So.2d 412, 415 (Fla.1950). Although plaintiff is unable to point to any limiting language within section 770.01, plaintiff points to language from Ross as authority for its narrow interpretation. We disagree that Ross can be interpreted to exclude reporters, editorial writers and columnists from the protection of 770.01....

...vely discourage the very free and rapid dissemination of new[s] it seeks to encourage. Field Research Corp. v. Superior Court of San Francisco, 71 Cal.2d 110, 77 Cal.Rptr. 243, 453 P.2d 747, 751 (1969) (citing Pridonoff ). *1380 The issue of whether section 770.01 applies to individuals who write the columns, editorials and articles for the newspaper has never been squarely addressed in Florida. [3] However, in Cook v. Pompano Shopper, 582 So.2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), the defendants included the authors of the article, the newspaper itself, and the owners of the newspaper. One of the issues on appeal was the sufficiency, under section 770.01, of letters demanding retraction....

...In holding that the notice was legally insufficient because it did not specify with particularity the allegedly defamatory statements, neither our court nor the parties attempted to differentiate between the author of the article and the publisher. Our interpretation of the scope of section 770.01 does not conflict with the series of cases holding the statute does not apply to "non-media defendants." See, e.g., Davies; Bridges; Gifford....

...In Gifford the "non-media defendant" was an aerial advertising firm being sued for a banner towed overhead by airplane. Most recently, in Tobkin v. Jarboe, 695 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA), review granted, 22 Fla. L. Weekly, ___ So.2d ___ (Fla. Nov. 6, 1997), we held that the protection of section 770.01 did not cover individuals who sent letters to The Florida Bar. Taken to its logical extreme, the interpretation urged by plaintiff would effectively circumvent the notice provisions of section 770.01 and eviscerate the intent of chapter 770 by allowing a plaintiff to sue newspaper reporters and columnists for libel and slander without naming the newspaper publisher....

...The trial court dismissed with prejudice stating: Plaintiff has failed to present this court with facts sufficient to state a cause of action for defamation in Florida. Plaintiff does not deny that he failed to provide the pre-suit notice required by Florida law. Fla. Stat. ch. 770.01 (1993) precludes the filing of a lawsuit for libel or slander until five days after the claimant has given notice specifying the publication at issue and the statements therein which are alleged *1258 to be false and defamatory. Prior to Wagner, Nugent, Johnson, Roth, Romano, Erikson & Kupfer, P.A. v. Flanagan, 629 So.2d 113 (Fla.1993), courts were in disagreement over whether section 770.01 applied only in cases against media defendants. Compare Della-Donna v. Gore Newspapers Co., 463 So.2d 414, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) ("Section 770.01 ... does not apply to non-media defendants") with King v. Burris, 588 F.Supp. 1152, 1158 (D.Colo.1984) (applying Florida law and holding that the requirements of Section 770.01 apply to non-media defendants); Laney v. Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc., 532 F.Supp. 910, 913 (S.D.Fla.1982) (applying Florida law and holding that Section 770.01 "is applicable to all defendants in actions for libel or slander")....

...Wagner, Nugent makes it clear that Chapter 770 is "applicable to all civil litigants, both public and private, in defamation actions." Wagner, Nugent, 629 So.2d at 115. Thus, defendants were entitled as a condition precedent to the filing of this defamation action to receive pre-suit notice. Failure to comply with Section 770.01 mandates dismissal of the action. Section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1995), states: Notice condition precedent to action or prosecution for libel or slander....

...s no statute of repose for this particular tort. Id. at 115. The context of this statement makes it clear that the court in Wagner, Nugent was applying only section 770.07 to all civil litigants, not the entire chapter 770. Appellees also argue that section 770.01 must apply to all defendants because a classification limiting it to media defendants would not serve a compelling state interest sufficient to survive strict scrutiny....

...Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 217, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 2395, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982), reh'g denied, 458 U.S. 1131, 103 S.Ct. *1259 14, 73 L.Ed.2d 1401 (1982). Appellees have not cited any authority for the proposition that the right to pre-suit notice under section 770.01 is a fundamental right. The Florida Supreme Court's analysis of sections 770.01 and 770.02 in Ross, makes it clear that the classification has, at least, a rational basis....

...Quite likely the need for appeal would have been thereby eliminated to the advantage of all concerned. As we noted at the outset, plaintiff's complaint is in three counts. Count III is clearly defective in that it contains no allegation of a notice or demand for retraction of the objectionable article. Since Section 770.01, F.S....

...reckless, or careless manner in reproducing the news dispatch. The court relied on the case of Layne v. Tribune Co., 1933, 108 Fla. 177, 146 So. 234, 236, 86 A.L.R. 466, holding that the principles expressed in that case were not changed by sections 770.01 and 770.02, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...It is the contention of the appellee, and such was the holding of the lower court, that the case of Layne v. Tribune Company controls the question of law in this case. It is the contention of the appellant, however, that the law applicable is governed not only by Layne v. Tribune Company, supra, but also by Florida Statutes, § 770.01 and § 770.02....

...ampa Tribune, and that the complaint did not set up facts which would take it out of the Tribune case. The decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in Layne v. Tribune Co., supra, was published February 3, 1933. Chapter 16071, Laws of Florida, 1933 (§ 770.01 and § 770.02, Florida Statutes, 1959, F.S.A.) was passed at the legislative session of 1933, and was, therefore, subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court in Layne v....

...defendant newspaper. We are of the opinion that under the facts of this case the law applicable is that enunciated by the Florida Supreme Court in Layne v. Tribune Company, supra, and that such holding is not affected or changed by Florida Statutes, § 770.01 and § 770.02, F.S.A....

...In this defamation case, Christopher Co-mins [“Comins”], appeals a trial court order entering partial final judgment in favor of Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Matthew VanVoorhis [“VanVoorhis”], for Comins’s failure to comply with the presuit notice requirement of section 770.01, Florida Statutes (2008)....

...Thereafter, VanVoorhis filed a counterclaim • against Comins for abuse of process and filed an answer and asserted eleven affirmative defenses to Co-mins’s complaint. At issue here is Van-Voorhis’s fifth affirmative defense that Co-mins failed to comply with the presuit notice requirement of section 770.01 before *549 filing the complaint against him. Section 770.01 provides: Before any civil action is brought for publication or broadcast, in a newspaper, periodical, or other medium, of a libel or slander, the plaintiff shall, at least 5 days before instituting such action, serve notice in writing on the defendant, specifying the article or broadcast and the statements therein which he or she alleges to be false and defamatory. § 770.01, Fla....

...Based on this representation, the trial court granted VanVoorhis’s motion to dismiss, but gave Comins leave to amend his complaint to properly plead compliance with the presuit notice requirement. Comins’s first amended complaint alleged that “Plaintiff complied with Fla. Stat. § 770.01 in an abundance of caution by serving notice in writing on Defendant care of the University of Florida on March 23, 2009, identifying the articles which Plaintiff alleges to be false and defamatory.” Later, Comins filed a second amended c...

...On March 1, 2011, VanVoorhis filed a motion for summary judgment on the pre-suit notice issue. The trial court held a hearing on VanVoorhis’s motion for summary judgment and ruled in favor of Van-Voorhis based on Comins’s failure to comply with the presuit notice requirement of section 770.01. The trial court said that “[t]he issue, then, is whether or a[sic] not Defendant’s blog falls under the rubric of ‘other medium’ as used in section 770.01.” Finding that “other medium” does include the internet, the trial court held that Co-mins was required to give VanVoorhis pre-suit notice under section 770.01. The trial court also rejected Comins’s waiver argument as having no factual or legal basis. We agree. 5 On appeal, Comins argues that the trial court erred by ruling that Comins’s failure to comply with the presuit notice requirement of section 770.01 barred his claims because the section only applies to a “media defendant” and VanVoorhis is not a “media defendant.” Although the express language of section 770.01 does not limit the type of defendant entitled to presuit notice, “[e]very Florida court that has considered the question has concluded that the presuit notice requirement applies only to ‘media defendants,’ not to private individuals.” Zelinka v....

...’s defamation law, a prospective plaintiff is required to give a media defendant notice five days before initiating a civil action.” However, this language does not necessarily mean that only media defendants are entitled to presuit notice under section 770.01. 6 The line of cases imposing the “media defendant” requirement rely mainly on the Florida Supreme Court’s much earlier opinion in Ross v. Gore, 48 So.2d 412 (Fla.1950). Section 770.01 was originally enacted in 1933 and, until 1976, applied only to actions brought for publication of a libel in a newspaper or periodical: Before any civil action is brought for publication, in a newspaper or periodical, of a libel, the plaintiff shall, at least five days before instituting such action, serve notice in writing on defendant, specifying the article, and the statements therein, which he alleges to be false and defamatory. § 770.01, Fla....

...ewspapers and periodicals an opportunity in every case to make a full and fair retraction in mitigation of the damages which a person may have suffered by reason of the publication.” 48 So.2d at 415 . The issue in Ross was the constitutionality of section 770.01....

...tice was a condition precedent to suit. Id. The court reasoned that construing the statute otherwise would “defeat what must have been one of the objectives of the Legislature in enacting the statute.” Id. The court explained that the purpose of section 770.01 was “also to afford to newspapers and periodicals an opportunity in every case to make a full and fair retraction in mitigation of the damages which a person may have suffered by reason of the publication....

...editorial writer. Id. In other words, the Ross court determined that it is necessary in a democracy for the people to have speedy access to fact reporting and editorial comment. The Ross court was especially concerned that removing the safeguards of section 770.01 would result in a press that is “so inhibited that its great and necessary function of policing our society through reporting its events and by analytical criticism would be seriously impaired.” Id. at 415 . 7 In 1976, section 770.01 was amended to apply to actions brought for publication or broadcast of a libel or slander in a newspaper, periodical, or other medium....

...Perhaps the Legislature enacted this amendment to expand the protection of the section to include only radio and television broadcasts. Indeed, at that time, other sections of chapter 770 were amended to include explicit references to radio and television broadcasts. However, the amended language of section 770.01 was not so specific. In Laney v. Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc., 532 F.Supp. 910 (S.D.Fla.1982), Judge King had to decide whether section 770.01 applied to protect the author of an allegedly defamatory letter to the editor that was published by Knight-Ridder Newspapers....

...se were media-defendants.” Id. at 912 n. 6. Judge King’s reasoning has since been rejected by other courts addressing this issue. In Bridges v. Williamson, 449 So.2d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), the Second District noted that the Ross court construed 770.01 “to apply exclusively to suits against newspapers and periodicals, as distinguished from private individuals.” Id. at 401. When section 770.01 was later amended, “the legislature was aware of Ross since it is presumed to be cognizant of the judicial construction of a statute when contemplating changes in the statute.” Id....

...Nowhere does the statute contain the words ‘nonmedia’ or ‘private individuals.’ ” Id. A week after the Bridges opinion was published, the Third District published its opinion in Davies v. Bossert, 449 So.2d 418 (Fla. Bd DCA 1984), in which it also held that section 770.01 applies only to media defendants. In Davies , the court was confronted with whether the plaintiff was required to follow the 770.01 presuit notice requirement before filing suit for slander over “allegedly defamatory statements made by a private citizen [about a lobster fisherman he believed was stealing lobster from the nets of other fishermen] over an emergency channel of a citizen’s band radio.” Id. at 419 . The Davies court held that this non-media defendant was not entitled to presuit notice under section 770.01....

...The main issue in Ross was whether the statute was discriminatory in that it permitted media defendants to avoid punitive damages by publishing a retraction or apology for libelous statements while not affording the same privilege to non-media defendants. The court did not hold, as does Laney , that section 770.01 applies to media and non-media libelees alike, but recognized that the unambiguous language of the statutory condition precedent applies only to media defendants. Ross, 48 So.2d at 414-15 . Id. at 420 . Then, the Davies court examined the 1976 revision of the statute: The earlier version of section 770.01, which was construed in Ross v....

...Section 770.04 refers specifically to the civil liability of an “owner, licensee, or operator of a radio or television broadcasting station, and the agents, or employees of any such owner, licensee or operator.” Since no other section of Chapter 770 uses the language “other medium” as found in section 770.01, we can infer reasonably that the legislature intended that term to include television and radio broadcasting stations. There is no logical reason to suppose that section 770.01 contemplates any form of medium not covered by other sections of the chapter. In the absence of legislative history, we can look to earlier enactments and other sections of the present Chapter 770 to determine the intent and meaning of the words “or other medium” in section 770.01....

...2d DCA 1990) (citing to Davies for the proposition that “other medium” includes only television and radio broadcasters). The Davies court’s rationale was implicitly rejected in Nelson v. Associated Press, Inc., 667 F.Supp. 1468 (S.D.Fla.1987). In Nelson , the plaintiff relied on Davies and Bridges to argue that section 770.01 did not apply to dispatches transmitted by the Associated Press over their wire service....

...Rejecting the plaintiffs argument, Judge Spellman ruled that the language “other medium” should be read broadly to include wire services like the AP. In Mancini v. Personalized Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc., 702 So.2d 1376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), the plaintiff had successfully argued to the trial court that section 770.01 did not apply to the defendant in the case....

...between defendant and any other columnist. To the extent that plaintiff asserts that the statute is applicable only to actions against the newspaper itself, as opposed to the individuals writing for the newspaper, this restrictive interpretation of section 770.01 is not supported by the language of the statute. Id. at 1378 . The Mancini opinion mainly concerns the plaintiffs argument that section 770.01 applies only to actions against the newspaper itself. Rejecting this argument, the Mancini court held that interpreting Ross to exclude reporters, editorial writers, and columnists from the protection of 770.01 would be “contrary not only to the plain language of the statute, but to the legisla *554 tive intent of the statute as expressed in Ross.” Id....

...Moreover, the Maneini court noted that “there is nothing in the language of the companion retraction provision, section 770.02, that would limit the protection to the newspaper publisher ....” Id. at 1379. The Maneini court stressed that its interpretation of the scope of section 770.01 “does not conflict with the series of cases holding the statute does not apply to ‘non-media defendants’ ......

...edly libelous statement had been republished by the newspaper. In Gifford the “non-media defendant” was an aerial advertising firm being sued for a banner towed overhead by airplane. Most recently, in [Tobkin ] ... we held that the protection of section 770.01 did not cover individuals who sent letters to The Florida Bar. According to the Maneini court, the scope of section 770.01’s protection is defined by separating third parties who are not engaged in the dissemination of news and information “through the news and broadcast media” from those who are so engaged....

...Banco Central Del Ecuador, 17 F.Supp.2d 1334 (S.D.Fla. 1998), Judge King sought to do just that. In Ortega Trujillo , the defendant — a public-relations firm in the business of public relations and lobbying for its clients— sought protection under section 770.01 for a press release it published that contained allegedly defamatory statements....

...Eventually, our courts were confronted with cases involving defamatory statements made over the internet. In Zelinka, 763 So.2d at 1173 , the court had to decide whether a plaintiff in a libel action arising out of a posting on an internet “message board” was required to comply with the presuit notice requirements of section 770.01....

...“dedicated to providing information to the consumer public about the hair restoration and transplant industry.” Id. at 1303-04 . The defendant claimed that the defamation suit should be dismissed because the plaintiffs had failed to comply with section 770.01. The defendant argued that “notice was required in this case because the ‘other medium’ language used in section 770.01 includes the internet and internet forums such as the website at issue in this case.” Id. at 1307 . The plaintiffs, on the other hand, argued that the “other medium” of section 770.01 was intended to include only television and radio broadcasting stations, and thus no notice was required in their ease. Id. In deciding whether section 770.01 applied to the defendant, Judge Lenard first acknowledged that “[w]hether the internet is included as part of the ‘other medium’ language ......

...Rptr. 1540, 1542 (Fla.Cir. Ct. Mar. 17, 2005), aff'd by 976 So.2d 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). In Canónico, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs defamation claim relating to statements made on the internet because the plaintiff had not complied with section 770.01. In Holt, the trial court rejected the plaintiffs contention that section 770.01 does not apply to stories published on the internet, even by a media defendant....

...argument — with the exception of [Ze-linka ] — pre-date, by at least a decade, the use of the internet by the general public, and do not directly address whether the internet is considered in the category of ‘other medium’ as contemplated by section 770.01.” Id....

...sulting from a press release that the defendants posted on their respective websites. Relying on Alvi, the defendants argued that the publication of the allegedly defamatory statements on their websites fell within the “other medium” language of section 770.01. Id. at 1326 . In response, the plaintiffs argued that section 770.01’s protection did not apply to the defendants “simply because technology now enables those individuals to publish information on the internet.” Mat 1326-27. When deciding the issue, Judge Seitz first pointed out that the parties’ arguments had “unnecessarily confused the issue.” Id. at 1327 . Judge Seitz said: Whether the phrase “other medium” in § 770.01 includes the internet is not the critical issue here, and, in this Court’s view, not even open for debate. That the internet constitutes a “other medium” for the purposes of § 770.01 should be well-settled....

...the print or the online version of the paper. The medium through which Defendants made the statements then, is not dispositive here. Rather, the issue is whether these Defendants are the type of parties contemplated to receive pre-suit notice under § 770.01. There is no dispute in Florida about who is entitled to receive pre-suit notice under § 770.01....

...The Florida Supreme Court has explained that one of the objectives of the statute was to afford newspapers and periodicals an opportunity to make a full retraction to correct errors and avoid exposure to punitive damages. Ross v. Gore, 48 So.2d 412 (Fla.1950). Id. “Accordingly, § 770.01 does not extend to nonmedia defendants.” Id. With that stated, Judge Seitz went on to rule on whether the defendants in the case were *557 “nonmedia” defendants, and thus not entitled to the protection of section 770.01....

...ween private parties and members of the media. Id. With this emerging legal landscape in mind, we turn to the case here, where the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of VanVoorhis because it determined that the words “other medium” of section 770.01 were expansive enough to include the internet and a blog, and that VanVoorhis’s blog falls under the rubric of “other medium.” In support of this ruling, the trial court cited to the Alvi decision, which applied section 770.01 to a defendant who made defamatory statements on his website, where his website was owned and operated for the purpose of providing consumer information on the hair restoration and transplant industry. Comins argues that the trial court erred by only considering whether the internet blog is a “medium” under section 770.01 and not whether VanVoorhis is a “media defendant.” Important to the analysis here is the Ross court’s discussion of the legitimate government interest in requiring presuit notice as a condition precedent under section 770.01....

...anations of the meaning of these developments. Other blogs run the gamut of quality of expertise, explanation and even-handed treatment of their subjects. We are not prepared to say that all blogs and all bloggers would qualify for the protection of section 770.01, Florida Statutes, but we conclude that VanVoo-rhis’s blog, at issue here, is within the ambit of the statute’s protection as an alternative medium of news and public comment. *560 The trial court properly determined that VanVoorhis was entitled to presuit notice under section 770.01. The presuit notice requirement of section 770.01 applies to allegedly defamatory statements made in such a public medium the purpose of which is the free dissemination of news or analytical comment on matters of public concern, as suggested in Ross ....

...�s inherent authority and under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2011) [the "57.105 motion”]. VanVoorhis argues that the trial court erred by denying the 57.105 motion because Comins's counsel misrepresented to the court that presuit notice under section 770.01 had been given....

...VanVoorhis testified that the article applied a theory from George Ritzer’s book "The McDonaldization of Society” to the idea of citizenship, and what it means to be an active citizen in the United States. .Comins contends that the Killgore letter was sufficient to meet the requirements of section 770.01, Florida Statutes; however, this letter fails in its essential function to notify the defendant that the article was false and defamatory....

provide them with presuit notice as required by section 770.01, Florida Statutes (2018). Apparently agreeing

...O'Toole, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant. Karen Coolman Amlong of Holmes & Amlong, Fort Lauderdale; and Scott DiSalvo of Fazio, Dawson & DiSalvo, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee, Forman. PER CURIAM. The summary judgment entered in this cause is reversed. Section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1983), does not apply to non-media defendants....

...Pino-Allen and others on a textbook. He was not her supervisor. Ms. Pino-Allen alleges that Mr. Santelises made the false and defamatory statements regarding her in retaliation for her criticism of mistakes purportedly made by Mr. Santelises in part of the textbook. 1 § 770.01, Fla....

...Indeed, neither the complaint nor its exhibits allege that a judicial proceeding existed at the time the Letter was sent to either CNBC or to the reporter, Janet Sparks. Moreover, a review of the First Amended Complaint fails to allege that the Letter was sent as a statutory five day pre-suit notice under section 770.01, Florida Statutes (2011). The Letter does not, on its face, indicate that it was sent as a five day pre-suit notice required under section 770.01. In contrast, other exhibits attached to the First Amended Complaint, specifically eight letters from Rolle’s counsel to Appellees, show on their face that they were sent pursuant to section 770.01. Indeed, all eight letters contain a section entitled “Five-Day Notice for Defamation Claim Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 770.01.” The first paragraph of each letter further states that the purpose of the letter is to serve as notice that, pursuant to section 770.01, Rolle intends to file a civil action in the State of Florida for several false and defamatory statements.3 2 The Court in Fridovich receded from Ange to the extent those decisions are inconsistent, stating: “defamatory statements...

...to the institution of criminal charges are presumptively qualifiedly privileged.” Fridovich, 598 So. 2d at 69 (emphasis added.) 7 Additionally, those letters from Rolle’s counsel appear to comply with section 770.01’s requirement to identify the alleged false and defamatory statements made by the Appellees. Thus, these letters show on their face that they were sent pursuant to the statutory five-day pre-suit notice. Indeed, without additional factual information it is difficult to characterize the Letter as a pre-suit notice as required by section 770.01....

...period 2005-2007. The stories were published in print and online. Greene provided pre-publication information and denials of certain information disclosed by the reporters, and he sent timely, written post-publication retraction demands pursuant to section 770.01, Florida Statutes (2010)....

...Defendants' Motion to Dismiss In their Motion, Defendants first argue that the Court must treat Plaintiffs' claims under FDUTPA and for defamation as a single claim because both claims arise out of the same set of operative facts. (D.E. 21 at 2-4.) Next, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with Section 770.01 of the Florida Statutes because Plaintiffs have not alleged that they provided the requisite five days' notice before commencing their defamation claim against Defendants, nor can they comply with such prerequisite, as they failed to provide timely notice under the statute....

...at 16-17.) In their Response, Plaintiffs argue that Plaintiffs have alleged an independent basis for their FDUTPA claim, namely, Defendants' deceptive and misleading conduct, separate and apart from defamatory statements. (D.E. 31 at 4-5.) Next, Plaintiffs argue that Section 770.01 of the Florida Statutes is not applicable to internet chat forums such as that at issue here....

...ts posted on their website, district court erred in dismissing complaint). [2] B. Defamation Claim (Count II) With respect to Plaintiffs' defamation claim, Defendants argue that such claim should be dismissed because Plaintiffs failed to comply with Section 770.01 of the Florida Statutes, which requires a plaintiff to serve written notice on a defendant specifying the alleged defamatory statements and the article or broadcast in which they were made at least five (5) days "[b]efore any civil action [of a libel or slander] is brought for publication or broadcast, in a newspaper, periodical, or other medium ." Fla. Stat. § 770.01 (2008) (emphasis added). Defendants contend that notice was required in this case because the "other medium" language used in Section 770.01 includes the internet and internet forums such as the website at issue in this case. Plaintiffs, however, argue that the "other medium" language employed in Section 770.01 was intended to include solely television and radio broadcasting stations, and thus no notice was required in this case. Whether the internet is included as part of the "other medium" language used in Section 770.01 is an issue that has not been definitively resolved by the Supreme Court of Florida or by any court in this Circuit....

...1549 (Fla.Cir.Ct. Feb. 22, 2007), the plaintiffs claimed that they were defamed by statements made "on television and/or the internet," which included a story that was posted on the defendants' internet website. Id. at 1550; see also id. at 1551. The court applied Section 770.01 and found that the plaintiffs did not comply with the five-day notice period therein; thus, the court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction on the plaintiffs' defamation claim. See id. at 1550-51. Further, in Holt v. Tampa Bay Television, Inc., 34 Med. L. Rptr. 1540, 1542 (Fla.Cir. Ct. Mar. 17, 2005), aff'd by 976 So.2d 1106 *1308 (Fla.2d. Dist.Ct.App.2007), another defamation case, the plaintiff asserted that Section 770.01 did not apply to stories published on the internet, and therefore, no notice of the alleged defamatory statements was required. The court, however, held that the phrase "other medium" in Section 770.01 includes the internet....

...Americare Healthscan, Inc., 763 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 4th. Dist. Ct.App.2000)—pre-date, by at least a decade, the use of the internet by the general public, and do not directly address whether the internet is considered in the category of "other medium" as contemplated by Section 770.01....

...court declined to expand the "other medium" language used in Section 770 to the internet. ( See D.E. 31 at 7.) Instead, the Zelinka court expressly stated that it "need not reach the issue of whether the internet is a `medium' within the meaning of Section 770.01," and held only that the notice requirement in Section 770.01 could not be extended "to a private individual who merely posts a message on the [internet] board." See Zelinka, 763 So.2d at 1175....

...that Plaintiffs prioritize revenues over patient care." ( See, e.g., D.E. 1 ¶ 30, 61.) Under these circumstances, and applying the logic employed by more recent cases cited by Defendants, the Court finds that Plaintiffs were required to give Defendants notice of their defamation claim in accordance with Section 770.01....

...granted. See Hall v. Hanford, 64 So.2d 303 (Fla. 1953); Merrell v. Bonita Springs Golf Course, Ltd., 512 So.2d 974 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (where no action is pending against appellants, no injunction may issue). On the other hand, Saro is required under section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1987), to furnish WBBH with written notice five days prior to filing any claim against WBBH for defamation....

...If Saro complies with the notice provision and submits a five-day notice of intent to file defamation suit before seeking injunctive relief in the defamation action, then it runs the risk that some of the evidence, which forms the basis of Saro's defamatory claim, may be destroyed by the media within that period. Section 770.01 does not provide for the preservation of evidence during the interim five-day period before suit is filed....

...However unfair the result reached, the "catch-22" presented by these facts can only be corrected by the legislature. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's entry of the temporary injunction and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. DANAHY, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur. NOTES [*] Section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1987) provides: Notice condition precedent to action or prosecution for libel or slander....

...arred. First, this Court is not aware of any precedent, and Plaintiff cites none, indicating that a defamation claim ripens only after Defendant has been informed of the allegedly defamatory content. Pre-suit notice to Defendant MNT under Fla. Stat. § 770.01 did not start the statute-of-limitations clock....

...scholarly articles worldwide and that the article was published by the authors to Elsevier for further publication to the broader public. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint based on PFS’s failure to *860 comply with the terms of section 770.01, Florida Statutes that requires pre-suit notification in certain slander and libel cases: 770.01....

...of a libel or slander, the plaintiff shall, at least 5 days before instituting such action, serve notice in writing on the defendant, specifying the article or broadcast and the statements therein which he or she alleges to be false and defamatory. § 770.01, Fla....

...The blog was intended to provide a forum where VanVoorhis could publicly comment on issues of public concern. The trial court entered summary judgment against Comins, ruling that Vanvoorhis’s blog fell “under the rubric of ‘other medium’ as used in section 770.01” and, therefore, Co-mins was required to give Vanvoorhis pre-suit notice before filing his defamation lawsuit. Our court affirmed. In so ruling, we addressed several out-of-district cases interpreting the statute and, on the issue of the other districts’ holdings that section 770.01 only applies to “media defendants”, our court explained: The “media defendant” issue arises because of certain language appearing in prior decisions of the Florida Supreme Court....

...��s defamation law, a prospective plaintiff is required to give a media defendant notice five days before initiating a civil action.” However, this language does not necessarily mean that only media defendants are entitled to pre-suit notice under section 770.01....

...ral commentary or editorializing as to matters of public interest. Id. at 557 (emphasis added). The court then applied the Ross standard to the facts at hand and concluded that Vanvoorhis’s blog was covered under the “other medium” language in section 770.01 because the blog was operated to further the free dissemination of information or disinterested and neutral commentary or editorializing as to matters of public interest....

...Specifically, PFS argues that the analysis set forth in Comins is not applicable here because the instant facts involve a website which published independent authors’ writings, not a blog publishing the blog owner’s writings. We disagree. In Comins , we held that, under Ross, the “notice requirement of section 770.01 applies to allegedly defamatory statements made in such a public medium, the purpose of which is the free dissemination of news or analytical comment on matters of public concern”....

...on matters of public interest since the complaint alleges that Elsevier is an internet publisher of various purportedly scientific, technical, and medical journals and information. Accordingly, on these facts, the trial court properly concluded that section 770.01’s pre-suit notice requirement applies to the defamation claims in this case....

provide them with presuit notice as required by section 770.01, Florida Statutes (2018). Apparently agreeing

...See § 95.11(4)(g), Fla. Stat. (2003). We affirm. We review the trial court's order de novo. Lander v. Smith, 906 So.2d 1130, 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (citing MEBA Med. & Benefits Plan v. Lago, 867 So.2d 1184, 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)). The interplay between section 770.01 and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(a) is central to our review. The statute provides as follows: 770.01 Notice condition precedent to action or prosecution for libel or slander....

...Providing notice is a condition precedent to filing suit. See Gifford v. Bruckner, 565 So.2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Mancini v. Personalized Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc., 702 So.2d 1376, 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Cummings v. Dawson, 444 So.2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Section 770.01 does not specify whether the five-day period is calculated using business or calendar days....

...which cause comes to issue, as well as any intervening Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday). The alleged defamation occurred on October 8, 2003. The final day of the limitations period was October 10, 2005. See § 95.11(4)(g). Mr. Canonico mailed his section 770.01 notice on Tuesday, October 4, 2005. Under rule 1.090, the intervening Saturday and Sunday, October 8 and 9, 2005, did not count; Tuesday, October 11, 2005, was the end of the five-day notice period. However, Mr. Canonico filed suit on October 10, 2005, a day too soon under section 770.01, read in conjunction with rule 1.090....

...hether a ten-month period would be extended for the commencement or conclusion of a hearing before a medical malpractice mediation panel should the last day fall on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday because it was not an issue in the case). Under section 770.01, Mr. Canonico could not act until the five-day notice period expired. However, we cannot accept his argument that, because section 770.01 is silent on the manner in which to calculate the five-day period, calendar days must be used....

...94-37 (1994) (advising that the five-day time computation period for publication of notice of sale under section 45.031(1), Florida Statutes (1993), should be computed by using rule 1.090(a)). The trial court properly computed the written notice requirement of section 770.01 by applying rule 1.090(a). Accordingly, we must affirm. However, we certify to the Supreme Court of Florida a question of great public importance: WHEN THE FIVE-DAY PRESUIT NOTICE IS GIVEN IN A DEFAMATION SUIT UNDER SECTION 770.01, DOES FLORIDA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.090(a) APPLY TO EXCLUDE SATURDAYS, SUNDAYS, AND LEGAL HOLIDAYS? WHATLEY and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur....

...Act (the “DMCA”). (Doc. No. 1, at 2). The “take-down” request alleged acts of copyright infringement by the Opinion Parties. (Doc. No. 1, at 6). Thereafter, on January 13, 2015, Roca allegedly sent the Opinion Parties a correspondence under Section 770.01 of the Florida Statutes, through which it threatened to sue the Opinion Parties for defamation....

...age in another proceeding ...” (Doc. 1). . "[Roca Labs] ... is a public figure, [the statements Opinion made] were true, substantially true, or statements of opinion, none of the statements referenced in Defendant’s Notice pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 770.01 give rise to a cause of action of defamation.” (Doc....

...McQueen was suing her on constituted protected "free speech in connection with a public issue" and that Ms. McQueen's claim was without merit. See § 768.295(3). Furthermore, Ms. Baskin argued that her vlog and website posts fell under the protection of section 770.01, Florida Statutes (2020), which requires presuit notice as a condition precedent when a defamation action is brought "for publication or broadcast, in a newspaper, periodical, or other medium." Ms....

...See generally Nicole J. Ligon, Protecting Local News Outlets from Fatal Legal Expenses, 95 N.Y.U. L. Rev. Online 280, 292 (2020) ("[A]nti-SLAPP statutes[] have been enacted in thirty-one states."). 8 Ms. McQueen served a notice to counsel pursuant to section 770.01 on January 27, 2021....

...On April 6, 2022, the court issued an order and final judgment against Ms. McQueen. Pertinent to our resolution of this appeal, the circuit court concluded that (1) Ms. Baskin was a "media defendant" so that the statements on her vlog and website were protected under section 770.01, (2) Ms....

...As such, the statements were not protected speech under the Anti-SLAPP statute. B. That, however, does not end our inquiry. Ms. Baskin contends she should be considered a "media defendant" entitled to the statutory protections of section 770.01, including prior notice and an opportunity to retract any allegedly defamatory statements she may have made. The circuit court agreed and concluded she was a media defendant; we conclude otherwise. We look first to the text of the statute Ms. Baskin invokes. Section 770.01 provides: 15  Before any civil action is brought for publication or broadcast, in a newspaper, periodical, or other medium, of a libel or slander, the plaintiff shall, at least 5 days before instituting such action, serve notice in writing on the defendant, specifying the article or broadcast and the statements therein which he or she alleges to be false and defamatory. In conjunction with section 770.01, section 770.02 states: (1) If it appears upon the trial that said article or broadcast was published in good faith; that its falsity was due to an honest mistake of the facts; that there were reasonable grounds for...

...The plaintiff alleged he was defamed by his portrayal as a money launderer and "integral member" of Pablo Escobar's criminal organization in the book The Infiltrator and the movie based on that book. Id. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiff failed to comply with the presuit conditions of section 770.01. Id. The circuit court denied their motion. Id. On certiorari review, we summarized how to construe these statutes: Sections 770.01 and 770.02 work together "to afford newspapers and periodicals an opportunity to make full retraction in order to correct inadvertent errors and mitigate damages, as well as to save them the expense of answering to an unfounded suit for libel." Bridges, 449 So. 2d at 401 (citing Ross, 48 So. 2d 412). Considering that the purpose behind section 770.01 is to protect the free press, Florida courts have interpreted the statute's "other medium" language to be limited to news media defendants who publish statements via an "other medium." To determine whether a defenda...

...Novella, No. 9:14-CV-80781, 2015 WL 1191267, at *8 (S.D. Fla. March 16, 2015) (quoting Ortega Trujillo v. Banco Cent. Del Ecuador, 17 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1338 (S.D. Fla. 1998)). So even though the "other medium" language expanded section 770.01 to cover new technologies used to disseminate the news, such as internet publishers and blogs, it did not expand the reach of the statute beyond the news 17  media. See, e.g., Plant Food Sys., Inc. v. Irey, 165 So. 3d 859, 861 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (holding that "an internet publisher of various purportedly scientific, technical, and medical journals and information" was covered by section 770.01); Comins, 135 So. 3d at 559 (holding that a blog was covered by section 770.01 and noting that "many blogs and bloggers will fall within the broad reach of 'media' " because many blogs have "primarily an informational purpose" and "usually provide[ ] for public impact or feedback"). This interpretation is confirmed by applying canons of statutory construction to the language of section 770.01....

...In other words, "where general words follow an enumeration of specific words, the general words are construed as applying to the same kind or class as those that are specifically mentioned." Id. (quoting Fayad v. Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co., 899 So. 2d 1082, 1088-89 (Fla. 2005)). Applying this canon to section 770.01, it becomes clear that the general term "other medium" is limited by the specific terms that precede it: "publication or broadcast, in a newspaper, periodical ....

...courts to construe statutes that relate to the same subject matter together to harmonize those statutes and give effect to legislative intent." Anderson v. State, 87 So. 3d 774, 777 (Fla. 2012). As explained in Ross, the notice provided for in section 770.01 and the opportunity to retract the offending statement provided for in section 770.02 go hand in hand. See 48 So. 2d at 415. Section 770.02 explicitly applies only to newspapers, periodicals, and broadcasts—the same types of publications specifically mentioned in section 770.01. Reading sections 770.01 and 770.02 in harmony, it becomes clear that the "other medium" language is not meant to expand the scope of section 770.01 beyond the news media. Id. at 817-18. Applying these principles, the Mazur court concluded that neither the book nor movie company defendants were entitled to the protections of sections 770.01 and 770.02. Id. at 818-19. 18  If a movie and a nonfiction book about an alleged drug cartel insider do not constitute "other medium" under section 770.01, it is difficult to imagine how Ms....

...In other words, media defendants are not limited to those who work in print media. True enough. But in this day and age, that's no longer a point in need of proving. See Five for Ent., 877 F. Supp. 2d at 1327 ("Whether the phrase 'other medium' in § 770.01 includes the internet is not the critical issue here, and, in this Court's view, not even open for debate. That the internet constitutes a[n] 'other medium' for the purposes of § 770.01 should be well-settled.")....

...Rather, our focus remains on the content of the digital publication and the central issue of whether it could be likened to the kind of content newspapers, broadcasters, and periodicals publish (whether in print or online), because that is all that sections 770.01 and .02 encompass....

...Corrections and retractions can be posted to and shared widely on social media. Mazur, 275 So. 3d at 818-19 (footnotes omitted). Changing times do not alter statutory text; amendments do. As we said in Mazur, 275 So. 3d at 819: "Whether the presuit notice protection under section 770.01 should have a wider reach in light of recent technological developments is a matter for the Florida Legislature to decide." IV. Because the complaint included allegations that could, if proven, constitute defamation and Ms....

PER CURIAM. The trial court’s order of dismissal for failure to serve the 5 day notice provided by Section 770.01 Florida Statutes (1983) prior to bringing a defamation action against a private “non-media” entity is reversed under the reasoning found in this court’s recent opinion of Davies v....

...Green took particular offense to the injuring a police dog charge, discussing the public outrage over “Meavick,” an apparent reference to the animal abuse charges brought against Michael Vick, a professional football player. Indeed, in response to Green’s notice to the newspaper, pursuant to section 770.01, Florida Statutes (2011), the Palatka Daily News retracted that portion of the article, clarifying that Green had been convicted of only arson....

PER CURIAM. The complaint, which alleges libel, is fatally defective in that the plaintiff has failed to allege compliance with Section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1977)....

notice served on the publication pursuant to section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1991) were created in anticipation

...Defendants. In this opinion, the Book Defendants and the Movie Defendants will be collectively referred to as the Petitioners/Defendants. -2- had failed to provide them with presuit notice as required by section 770.01, Florida Statutes (2018). Apparently agreeing with Baraya's position that section 770.01 does not apply here, the circuit court denied the motions. The Defendants filed in this court petitions for writs of certiorari seeking to quash the orders denying the motions to dismiss. "The denial of a motion to dismiss for failure to provide the presuit notice required by section 770.01 is a proper subject for certiorari review." Zelinka v. Americare Healthscan, Inc., 763 So. 2d 1173, 1173 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). However, we are constrained to deny the petitions because Florida courts have interpreted section 770.01 to apply only to news media, i.e., the press. Our scope of review on a petition for writ of certiorari is very narrow. "[T]he departure from the essential requirements of the law necessary for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is something more than a simple legal error." Allstate Ins....

...Masterpiece Homes, Inc., 942 So. 2d 995, 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). -3-  The Petitioners/Defendants argue that the circuit court violated clearly established principles of law by either misinterpreting or misapplying section 770.01, which provides as follows: 770.01....

...e as required by the statute, they argue that Baraya's suit should be dismissed. Although the circuit court did not set forth any specific findings, it rejected the Petitioners/Defendants' argument, apparently agreeing with Baraya's position that section 770.01 does not apply to books or movies and that the Petitioners/Defendants are "non-media defendants" for purposes of the statute. Florida courts have consistently interpreted section 770.01 to apply only to news media, i.e., the press. "In its original form, section 770.01 applied only to newspapers and periodicals." Zelinka, 763 So....

...mediums' in addition to newspapers and periodicals." Id. Even after the 1976 amendment, Florida courts have relied on the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Ross v. Gore, 48 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1950), for guidance on the parameters of the statutory language in section 770.01....

...Florida courts use the terms "media defendant" and "non-media defendant" to "separate third parties who are not engaged in the dissemination of news and information through the news and broadcast media from those who are so engaged." Id. at 1380. Because section 770.01 is meant to protect the free press, it only applies to media that publish news relatively quickly: In the free dissemination of news, then, and fair comment thereon, hundreds and thousands of news items an...

...-6-  (d) In the case of a newspaper or periodical published less frequently than monthly, in the next issue, provided notice is served no later than 45 days prior to such publication. Sections 770.01 and 770.02 work together "to afford newspapers and periodicals an opportunity to make full retraction in order to correct inadvertent errors and mitigate damages, as well as to save them the expense of answering to an unfounded suit for libel." Bridges, 449 So. 2d at 401 (citing Ross, 48 So. 2d 412). Considering that the purpose behind section 770.01 is to protect the free press, Florida courts have interpreted the statute's "other medium" language to be limited to news media defendants who publish statements via an "other medium." To determine whether a defendant's publication...

...es.' " Tobinick v. Novella, No. 9:14-CV- 80781, 2015 WL 1191267, at *8 (S.D. Fla. March 16, 2015) (quoting Ortega Trujillo v. Banco Cent. Del Ecuador, 17 F. Supp.2d 1334, 1338 (S.D. Fla. 1998)). So even though the "other medium" language expanded section 770.01 to cover new technologies used to disseminate the news, such as internet publishers and blogs, it did not expand the reach of the statute beyond the news media....

...See, e.g., Plant Food Sys., Inc. v. Irey, 165 So. 3d 859, 861 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (holding that "an internet publisher of various -7- purportedly scientific, technical, and medical journals and information" was covered by section 770.01); Comins, 135 So. 3d at 559 (holding that a blog was covered by section 770.01 and noting that "many blogs and bloggers will fall within the broad reach of 'media' " because many blogs have "primarily an informational purpose" and "usually provide[] for public impact or feedback"). This interpretation is confirmed by applying canons of statutory construction to the language of section 770.01....

...In other words, "where general words follow an enumeration of specific words, the general words are construed as applying to the same kind or class as those that are specifically mentioned." Id. (quoting Fayad v. Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co., 899 So. 2d 1082, 1088-89 (Fla. 2005)). Applying this canon to section 770.01, it becomes clear that the general term "other medium" is limited by the specific terms that precede it: "publication or broadcast, in a newspaper, periodical ....

...." Moreover, the doctrine of in pari materia "requires courts to construe statutes that relate to the same subject matter together to harmonize those statutes and give effect to legislative intent." Anderson v. State, 87 So. 3d 774, 777 (Fla. 2012). As explained in Ross, the notice provided for in section 770.01 and the opportunity to retract the offending statement provided for in section 770.02 go hand in hand. See 48 So. 2d at 415. Section 770.02 explicitly applies only to newspapers, periodicals, and broadcasts—the same types of publications specifically mentioned in section 770.01. -8- Reading sections 770.01 and 770.02 in harmony, it becomes clear that the "other medium" language is not meant to expand the scope of section 770.01 beyond the news media. Indeed, the "other medium" language is not found anywhere else in chapter 770. "Since no other section of [c]hapter 770 uses the language 'other medium' as found in [s]ection 770.01, we can infer reasonably that the legislature intended that term to include television and radio broadcasting stations." Davies, 449 So. 2d at 420. Interestingly, section 770.05, which addresses limitation of choice of venue, does specifically include books and motion pictures within its ambit, further showing that the legislature could have used similarly specific language in section 770.01 but chose not to do so....

...excluded."). Although books and movies may address topics of public interest, they are not part of the traditional news media or press, and therefore the Petitioners/Defendants in this case are not "media defendants" for purposes of section 770.01....

...Moreover, the frequency and wide distribution of news media allows for speedy and effective retractions when errors do happen. Books and movies have no similar mechanism for quickly and effectively issuing retractions. Accordingly, Petitioners/Defendants in this case are non-media defendants for purposes of section 770.01, and they are not entitled to presuit notice pursuant to the statute. Because the circuit court was bound to follow the existing case law interpreting section 770.01, including Ross from the Florida Supreme Court and Bridges from this court, the Petitioners/Defendants cannot show a departure from the essential requirements of the law and we must deny the petitions for writ of certiorari....

...record indicates that in response to Baraya's cease and desist letter the Book Defendants did in fact revise the original 2009 edition of the book and stop selling it in both physical and ebook formats. Whether the presuit notice protection under section 770.01 should have 3Jaclyn Peiser, "Podcasts Are Getting Newsier....

...Mishiyev's defamation cause of action pursuant to Florida's Anti-SLAPP2 statute, see § 768.295, Fla. Stat. (2020), as barred by the statute of limitations, see § 95.11(4)(g), Fla. Stat. (2020), and for failure to comply with the statutory presuit notice requirements of section 770.01, Florida Statutes (2020)....

...Mishiyev also faults the trial court for minimizing the gravity of his allegations. He observes that Appellees' statements that he was a cocaine user were published within the two- year statute of limitations and that he was not required to send Appellees a section 770.01 presuit notice. 5  We review the dismissal order de novo....

...Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So. 3d 146, 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010))). 3. Presuit Notice Mr. Mishiyev asserts that he was not required to send Appellees a presuit notice. The trial court failed to specify the statements for which notice was needed. Section 770.01 provides: Before any civil action is brought for publication or broadcast, in a newspaper, periodical, or other medium, of a libel or slander, the plaintiff shall, at least 5 days before instituting such...

...defamatory. (Emphasis added.) Appellees contend that they were entitled to presuit notice because the statements were made by a radio broadcaster. Although Mr. Davis is a broadcaster, not every statement he makes falls within the purview of section 770.01....

...5th DCA 2014))). The allegedly defamatory statements made in December 2019 and November 2020, for example, were not made for the purpose of disseminating information or commentary or editorializing on matters of public interest. As a result, the statements do not fall within the "other medium" language of section 770.01....

prosecutions, a statute identical in content, Section 770.01, Florida Statutes 1951, F. S.A., was before

...precedent to filing this suit including a retraction demand pursuant to Chapter 770, Florida Statutes.” In response, Post-Newsweek filed a motion to dismiss, seeking dismissal based on Cousins’s failure to comply with a condition precedent pursuant to section 770.01, Florida Statutes.4 Following a hearing, the trial court granted Post-Newsweek’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Cousins’s presuit notice was “woefully inadequate” and 4 Section 770.01, Florida Statutes (2007), sets forth a presuit notice requirement for certain civil actions for libel or slander. 5 failed to comply with section 770.01....

...ailed to plead 6 the issue with sufficient specificity in response to Cousins’s initial and first amended complaints. Second, Cousins claims the presuit letter provided to Post-Newsweek complied with section 770.01. We agree only with the second point. (1) Waiver of Compliance with Condition Precedent Addressing the first issue, Cousins claims Post-Newsweek waived compliance with a condition precedent—here, section 770.01—when it failed to deny with specificity and particularity Cousins’s general allegation addressing conditions precedent in the initial and the first amended complaints....

...conditions precedent refer specifically to certain conditions inapplicable to Post- 8 Newsweek, and to an entirely different defendant, we conclude Post-Newsweek was not required to specifically and particularly allege noncompliance with section 770.01 in those initial filings. Notwithstanding Cousins’s inadequate initial pleadings, other circumstances in the record support our rejection of Cousins’s waiver argument....

...To the extent factual issues remain as to compliance with conditions precedent, those matters are premature and are unsuitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss. With this conclusion, we move to the second issue—that is, whether Cousins’s presuit notice sufficiently complied with section 770.01. (2) Sufficiency of Presuit Notice Addressing the second issue, Cousins contends the written notice sent to Post- Newsweek, which identified certain “materially false statements” aired in broadcast reports, sufficiently complied with section 770.01....

...statements upon which Cousins intended to sue. Given the stage of the underlying proceeding, and the fact the statements were aired over televised broadcasts, we disagree with Post-Newsweek and conclude Cousins’s presuit notice sufficiently complied with section 770.01. 10  Before commencing a civil action for libel or slander, a potential plaintiff is required to follow the procedure provided in section 770.01....

...tice in writing on the defendant, specifying the article or broadcast and the statements therein which he or she alleges to be false and defamatory. Ordinarily, a plaintiff’s “[f]ailure to comply with the notice provision of section 770.01 requires dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.” Mancini v. Personalized Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc., 702 So. 2d 1376, 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). But the sufficiency of notice, for purposes of compliance with the notice provision of section 770.01, depends on whether the alleged defamation is an oral statement or a written one. According to Post-Newsweek, Cousins is required to “strict[ly] compl[y] with Section 770.01, Florida Statutes” in order to state a defamation claim against it for the statements allegedly made in the course of its televised broadcasts....

...In other words, a “pleader need only state the essence of what the alleged defamer said.” Scott v. Busch, 907 So. 2d 662, 667 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). In reviewing Cousins’s presuit notice, we find Cousins sufficiently complied with section 770.01 to state a cause of action for defamation....

...2d 662; Edward L. Nezelek, Inc., 413 So. 2d 51. Tellingly, Cousins’s presuit notice enabled Post-Newsweek to investigate the allegations and thereupon, issue a partial clarification. See Ross v. Gore, 48 So. 2d 412, 415 (Fla. 1950) (explaining section 770.01 “was enacted ....

...In that clarification, Post-Newsweek not only referenced its “August . . . story,” but also provided clarification as to the number of cases Cousins’s office had closed. This clarification lends support to the conclusion that Post-Newsweek was on notice of the alleged defamatory statements as required by section 770.01. Because Cousins sufficiently complied with section 770.01, we find Cousins sufficiently pleads a claim for defamation,5 and that Post-Newsweek has not established a basis for dismissal with prejudice at this procedural stage of the case....

...13 Scott, 907 So. 2d at 667. Nor do we express an opinion as to the essence of Cousins’s claimed defamation. Simply put, we remand for the trial court to reinstate Cousins’s third amended complaint as Cousins sufficiently complied with section 770.01 and states a cause of action for defamation.7 Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we find that because the trial court improperly dismissed Cousins’s claims on the basis of insufficient presuit notice, we reverse and...