Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. v. Cammarata - Ballard Spahr LLP

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 124 of 139
defamatory statement, it must appear that [the plaintiff] is the person with reference to whom
the statement was made.” Kaufman v. Islamic Soc’y of Arlington, 291 S.W.3d 130, 144 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. denied) (quoting Newspapers, Inc. v. Matthews, 339 S.W.2d
890, 893 (Tex. 1960)). “It is ‘not necessary that the individual referred to be named if those
who knew and were acquainted with the plaintiff understand from reading the publication
that it referred to [the] plaintiff’; however, the ‘settled law requires that the false statement
point to the plaintiff and to no one else.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Matthews, 339
S.W.2d at 894). Whether a plaintiff is referred to in a statement is “a question of law for the
court.” Ledig v. Duke Energy Corp., 193 S.W.3d 167, 180 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2006, no pet.). A “claimed implication” is insufficient to refer to a defamation plaintiff when
it is not consistent with the “plain language” and the “full import” of a defendant’s statement.
Matthews, 339 S.W.2d at 894.
Rimkus’s argument that the emails clearly refer to it and it alone as a dishonest and
expensive engineering firm involved in lawsuits and government investigations is
unpersuasive. The November 5, 2007 email begins by stating that a “group of us from three
different engineering firms left our old companies and formed U.S. Forensic.” (Docket Entry
No. 371; Docket Entry No. 374, Ex. U) (emphasis added). Bell refers to U.S. Forensic as an
“alternative” for the insurance industry and then states that we would put “our guys’
experience up against anyone else.” (Id.) (emphasis added). The August 1, 2007 email states
that attorneys for clients of U.S. Forensic “appreciate the difference between us and the big
clearinghouse engineering firms.” (Docket Entry No. 372; Docket Entry No. 374, Ex. Z)
124