WWW.ALIGUS.COM

was established November 7, 2002
to advocate against veterinary malpractice, incompetence & negligence and
to educate the public about how state veterinary boards handle citizens' complaints

HOME MEDIA REPORTS THE NCVMB ABOUT VET BOARDS MONCE LIBEL LAWSUIT RESOURCES

Monce v. Deas, 05 CVS 4005
Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina
FILED MARCH 24, 2005 - TERMINATED WITH FINALITY NOVEMBER 13, 2007
Unexpectedly to us, Kevin Monce withdrew his lawsuit on October 22, 2007.

Plaintiff: Kevin A. Monce, DVM, DACVIM
Defendants: Nancy G. Deas, Edna E. Deas

 

  Libel Lawsuit of Kevin Monce

Counsel:  Michael Crowell, Esq.; Kenneth A. Soo, Esq.
Tharrington, Smith, LLP
Raleigh, North Carolina

Exhibit A:  Portion of February 21, 2005 aligus.com home page submitted by Kevin Monce, DVM

   Response to the Lawsuit of Kevin Monce

Counsel:  Hugh Stevens, Esq.; C. Amanda Martin, Esq.
Everett, Gaskins, Hancock & Stevens, LLP
New practice is Stevens Martin Vaughn & Tadych, PLLC
Raleigh, North Carolina

Exhibit 1:  Letter of Reprimand issued October 17, 2001 to Dana R. Jones, DVM, by the North Carolina Veterinary Medical Board (NCVMB)

Exhibit 2:  Letter of Reprimand issued October 17, 2001 to Kevin A. Monce, DVM, by the NCVMB;  Kevin Monce's November 6, 2001 rejection of the Letter of Reprimand

Exhibit 3:  Consent Order entered into April 7, 2003 between Kevin Monce and the NCVMB


  Defendants' Motion for Judgment on Pleadings - Statute of Limitations

November 3, 2005 Deas Memorandum of Law
November 8, 2005 Monce Memorandum of Law
January 25, 2006 Order of the Honorable John R. Jolly
  "... the motion by Defendants for judgment in their favor on the pleadings pursuant to the provisions of Rule 12(c), NCRCP, is DENIED."



  Defendants' and Plaintiff's Motions for Summary Judgment
September 25, 2006 Deas Motion
October 21, 2006 Deas Brief
November 9, 2006 Monce Motion and Brief
November 14, 2006 Deas Supplemental Brief
November 29, 2006 Crowell Letter to Judge Fox
December 15, 2006 Order of the Honorable Carl R. Fox
  "... the court determines that both the defendants' motion and the plaintiff's cross-motion should be denied."



  Plaintiff's Motion:      "Not Matter of Public Concern"
 Defendants' Motion:  "Public Concern and Other Threshold Issues of Law"

January 31, 2007 Order of the Honorable Donald W. Stephens
April 16, 2007 Monce Motion
April 27, 2007 Deas Motion
May 31, 2007 Monce Brief
June 1, 2007 Deas Brief
June 4, 2007 Monce Response
June 4, 2007 Deas Response
June 7, 2007 Order of the Honorable Donald W. Stephens
 

(emphasis added)

1. "Application of the principles set out in those cases to the undisputed facts of this case leads to the legal conclusion that the speech challenged in this lawsuit was addressed to a matter of public concern. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of public concern is denied. Pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, partial summary judgment on that issue is entered in favor of the defendants."
2. "There being no discernible legal basis for an award of attorney fees to the plaintiff, summary judgment is entered in favor of defendants on that issue."
3. "In order to prevail on a claim for punitive damages, the plaintiff must allege and prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendants published the challenged statements with actual malice -- that is with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard to their truth or falsity. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323. 350 (1974). There is no evidence in the record that the defendants published with actual malice, and plaintiff's counsel acknowledged in open court that he could forecast none. Therefore, summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages is entered in favor of the defendants."
4. "The Court reserves for the trial judge all remaining issues."



  Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Strike Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal on Public Concern
July 9, 2007 Monce Notice of Appeal
July 25, 2007 Deas Motion
August 16, 2007 Monce Response
August 20, 2007 Stevens Letter to Judge Stephens
August 20, 2007 Order of the Honorable Donald W. Stephens
  "... the court determines that the motion should be allowed because the order from which the plaintiff is attempting to appeal is interlocutory, does not affect a substantial right, and has not been certified for appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure; accordingly the "Notice of Appeal" filed by the plaintiff on July 9, 2007 is a nullity. The case shall proceed to trial on the merits."


  Plaintiff's Notice of Dismissal
  Superior Court Trial Calendar - October 29, 2007
October 22, 2007 Monce Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice
November 13, 2007 Monce Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice

 

Top of Page


Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!



TERMS OF USE
|
|
|
|
|