MIAMI – The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied compelling arbitration March 12, saying both the defendant and plaintiff had repudiated an agreement that arbitration was a part of in an alleged cyber-defamation case.
“This matter arose due to an aggressive, anonymous, and quite pervasive cyber-defamation campaign against the plaintiff,” the complaint alleged. “The campaign was remarkably extensive and forceful, in effect seeking to destroy the plaintiff.”
The plaintiff, Michael Reiterman, sued the defendant Farah Abid in 2018 for an alleged vicious and malicious series of attacks by Abid who, for two years, allegedly embarked on an elaborate smear campaign designed to destroy Reiterman’s reputation, livelihood and peace of mind by posting falsehoods on the internet.
“Ms. Abid has anonymously posted horrific hit pieces about Mr. Reiterman that paint him as a ‘serial rapist’ and violent abuser of multiple women,” the allegation read. “These defamatory articles and blogs were published in rapid succession beginning in September 2017 and lasting through at least September 2018. They were written to appear as if they were authored by several different women – though, as Mr. Reiterman later learned, they were actually fake personas created by Ms. Abid.”
Reiterman and Abid, both law students, reportedly had a brief relationship, according to the court document.
“Abid reported Reiterman to local police and prosecutive authorities for sexual assault,” the court brief said. “Two offices investigated, and closed their file with no action. Thereafter, the cyber campaign began.”
The two settled the case with a written agreement dated in June of 2018.
The settlement contained mutual non-disparagement clauses and a paragraph entitled “Takedown of Websites and Social Media,” which the court said made it clear that Reiterman intended to use the settlement to end the cyber defamation campaign.
The settlement obliged Abid to review and assent to the same effort and had a stipulation clause “not to sue” in which the parties represented they had not filed any other prior lawsuits naming each other.
The settlement also contained an arbitration provision if any controversy or claim arose.
After the settlement Abid allegedly posted on the web more derogatory information about Reiterman, in one instance published items from local police reports, including alleged affidavits that had been previously provided to Reiterman by Abid’s prior counsel. In another instance, it was alleged she posted the identity of Reiterman’s law school where he recently had graduated, and listed his new law firm employer.
“These postings show the horrific internet stalking and defamation continued after the settlement,” the plaintiff complaint said.
Reiterman’s lawyer wrote a letter to Abid’s counsel demanding cessation of the postings and that the settlement was null and void. Abid’s attorney said she no longer represented Abid, and so the letter was sent to Abid directly.
“Ms. Abid made clear she would not negotiate and since Mr. Reiterman is accusing (her) of having breached the settlement agreement and believes he no longer has an obligation to abide by the clauses set therein, she (Abid) will mirror that belief and no longer honor the clauses set forth in the agreement either,” the court brief read. “Ms. Abid noted she would resurrect her plans to publish a book about ‘this traumatic event’ and planned to re-establish relationships with numerous literary parties that were interested in publishing her story on a national platform."
Abid said she would never recant her statements about Reiterman, the court document reported. However, she also maintained she had nothing to do, directly or indirectly, with the cyber defamation campaign and did not know who might have done such a thing.
Reiterman filed an instant lawsuit in September of 2019.
Abid moved to enforce the arbitration provision in the settlement and to stay or dismiss the new lawsuit. The court held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the settlement containing the arbitration clause still existed, or had been repudiated by the parties.
The court brief said Abid had sent an April 10, 2019 email in which she appeared to repudiate the settlement, and that she was “extremely anxious and scared” and did not intend to rescind the settlement.
“She denied breaching the settlement,” the court opinion said. “Ms. Abid’s testimony at the hearing regarding the April 10 email was not credible.”
The U.S. District Court denied a motion from Abid to compel arbitration, saying the parties had renounced their agreement.
“The defendant shall file her responsive pleading no later than 10 days from today’s date (March 12). The parties may commence mutual discovery (gather evidence),” the brief advised.