Jack Shepard v. TheHuffingtonPost.Com, Inc., No. 12-4036 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Libel. Plaintiff's action was time-barred under Minnesota law; claim that the action was tolled based on plaintiff's military service rejected as none of plaintiff's submissions indicated that he was on active military duty at any relevant time.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-4036 ___________________________ Jack Shepard lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. TheHuffingtonPost.Com, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: June 5, 2013 Filed: June 7, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this diversity action, Jack Shepard appeals the district court s1 dismissal of his complaint asserting defamation claims based on an article first published on the 1 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. internet more than two years before this action was commenced. Shepard also moves to supplement the record on appeal with certain documents and photographs. Upon careful de novo review, see Northstar Indus., Inc. v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 576 F.3d 827, 831 (8th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal); see also Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 231 (1991) (de novo review of district court s determination of state law), we agree with the district court that Shepard s complaint was subject to dismissal as time-barred. See Minn. Stat. § 541.07 (actions for libel shall be commenced within 2 years); Church of Scientology of Minn. v. Minn. State Med. Ass n Found., 264 N.W.2d 152, 155 (Minn. 1978) (under single-publication rule, statute of limitations begins to run when mass-produced publication is first released to public; incidental republication does not restart statute of limitations); see also Yeager v. Bowlin, 693 F.3d 1076, 1082 (9th Cir. 2012) (website is not republished unless defamatory statement is substantively altered or added to, or website is directed to new audience), cert. denied, 12-1047, 2013 WL 686407 (U.S. Apr. 29, 2013); Nationwide Bi-Weekly Admin., v. Belo Corp., 512 F. 3d 137, 144 (5th Cir. 2007) (adopting holding in Firth v. State, 775 N.E.2d 463 (N.Y. 2002) (applying single-publication rule to internet publications)); noting that every court to consider issue since Firth has followed its approach). As to Shepard s tolling argument based on his military service, we agree with the district court that none of his submissions indicated that he was on active military duty at any relevant time. See 50 App. U.S.C.A. §§ 526 (excluding period of military service from statute-of-limitations computation), 511(2)(A)(i) ( military service means active duty in armed services); 10 U.S.C. § 101(d)(1) ( active duty means full-time duty in active military service). -2- Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. In addition, Shepard s pending motion is denied.2 ______________________________ 2 See Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 988 F. 2d 61, 63 (8th Cir. 1993) (generally appeals court cannot consider evidence not contained in record below). -3-
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.
