Marvin A. Colbert, Jr., et al v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., No. 13-12937 (11th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-12937 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 13-12937 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cv-00243-HLA-JBT MARVIN A. COLBERT, JR., TAMMY COLBERT, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., a foreign corporation-for-profit, Defendant-Appellee, LESLIE ARMOOGAM, Defendant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (December 9, 2013) Before HULL, HILL, and FAY, Circuit Judges. Case: 13-12937 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Plaintiff, Marvin Colbert, Jr. brought this defamation action against his former employer, Anheuser-Busch, Inc., alleging that defendant s employee made a call to the police regarding an incident between plaintiff and his supervisor, and that this call was defamatory and resulted in his termination. After a jury trial, the defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law, which the district court granted. In granting the motion, the district court recited that there was no evidence before the jury from which it could infer the content of the call to police, much less whether that content was untrue or defamatory. Furthermore, the court held that the evidence was overwhelming that plaintiff s termination had absolutely nothing to do with this call, but rather was the result of the incident between plaintiff and his supervisor. Finally, the court observed that there was no evidence of malice in this case. As a result of these conclusions, the district court granted defendant s motion for a judgment as a matter of law. We have reviewed the record, the trial transcripts provided, and have read and considered the parties arguments in their briefs. Finding no clear error in the district court s view of the evidence, we conclude that its decision to grant judgment as a matter of law to defendant is due to be AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
