Judge dismisses lawsuit against Millard County newspaper

FILLMORE — A 4th District judge dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed against a Millard County newspaper in a ruling on Thursday, saying the man who filed the lawsuit did not adequately support his claim.

Wayne Aston’s lawsuit claimed that the Millard County Chronicle Progress’ reporting about his proposed business deal in Fillmore was both false and defamatory. The paper, on the other hand, argued in a Sept. 4 hearing that a 2023 Utah law protecting public expression should lead to the dismissal of the lawsuit before the case headed to trial.

The newspaper’s attorney, Jeffrey Hunt, argued that the case is “a perfect example” of why the law is needed, saying it is designed to weed out defamation claims that would not move forward early on to save the defendant the costs of going through the lawsuit.

He said the defamation claim filed against the paper is “riddled with multiple legal defects.”

“If there’s any case, your honor, that deserves the protection of the statute, it’s this case. If there’s any lawsuit that deserves to be dismissed under the statute, it’s this one,” Hunt said.

The judge agreed with the paper, even admonishing Aston’s attorneys for filing suit. He dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be filed again.

A proposed development

During the September hearing, Hunt said Aston first came to Millard County in 2022 with a plan to construct a facility to build modular homes. Later, the plans expanded to include a recycling and repurposing plant. The proposed construction, Hunt said, would require a significant investment in infrastructure from Fillmore, although it would provide employment for hundreds of workers.

After writing an article on Aston’s comments about the project in a Fillmore City Council meeting, reporter Matt Ward researched previous projects Aston had spoken about in his presentation, including a condo development in Moab, Hunt explained.

“What Mr. Ward found was quite interesting. He found that for over the past decade or more, Mr. Aston had left a trail of bitter business disputes and lawsuits behind him,” Hunt said.

He said this information was directly related to Aston’s credibility and ability to deliver on the plans he was proposing to the city. Hunt said Ward acted “as any good reporter would” in researching this information and giving Aston a chance to comment in the article — which he did.

Ward reported about the proposed development multiple times before the Fillmore City Council voted to deny it in August 2023 because Aston “failed to adequately respond to the city’s environmental and other concerns.”

Hunt also argued that this case is the archetypal SLAPP lawsuit, or strategic lawsuit against public participation, saying a developer is a common example used in law school.

The anti-SLAPP law allows someone with a lawsuit filed against them related to their use of First Amendment rights to ask the court for an early dismissal. If the case is dismissed, they can then ask for the person filing the lawsuit to pay their legal fees.

Aston’s defamation claims

Aston’s attorney, on the other hand, claimed in the lawsuit and in his arguments on Sept. 4 that the reporting was both false and defamatory. Ryan Frazier said the new Utah law was not intended to shield defamatory and inaccurate reporting.

“Although we certainly need protections for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, certainly those do not protect any time the journalist wants to say whatever they want to say in what purports to be a factually reported article. Reporters certainly do not have the unfettered right to defame someone or to intentionally harm through the use of media,” he said.

Frazier said it wasn’t just the words used, but the tone — the reporting itself was “uniformly against the project” and was designed to be an an op-ed pretending to be a factual story.

He said the development Aston proposed envisioned “a platinum standard” for low emissions, a commitment to hiring veterans, and job training for residents, but this intent of Aston’s was not shown in the articles. Instead, he said it showed an “unflattering and frankly defamatory” version of Aston.

Frazier said the reporting related to Aston’s past projects was not just inaccurate but also was not directly related to the proposed project. He argued that it should not be protected from the defamation claim because it was related to a public project.

“Something doesn’t become part of the public interest just because a defendant newspaper decides to publish a wide-ranging story about it,” he said.

The attorney also argued the article falsely represented why the City Council denied the project and that it had denied the project, saying the council didn’t mention Aston’s character which was highlighted in the report. Frazier said the council denied a version of the project they had been collaborating on, not the project altogether.

“Clearly, such was just inaccurate reporting, it was not true,” he said.

Frazier argued Aston should have the right for the lawsuit to proceed long enough to learn who anonymous sources were, interview Fillmore City Council members and look at council notes to see if the newspaper’s articles did have an impact on the council’s decision.

Judge says lawsuit had errors

Before issuing the official ruling, Anthony Howell said each of Aston’s three complaints in the case contained repeated errors and did not accurately represent the articles published by the newspapers.

He also said Aston’s attorneys “should be aware of the defamation standard,” which requires that the statements be false at the time they were published. The ruling said Aston repeatedly claimed that statements made in the articles became false and defamatory afterward.

Howell admonished Aston and his attorney for being inaccurate in court filings.

He also said the newspaper’s attorneys convinced him “there is no genuine issue” and the statements in the articles were not defamatory.