miller answer and rfd filed 04 26 12

8/2/2019 Miller Answer and RFD Filed 04 26 12

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/miller-answer-and-rfd-filed-04-26-12 1/7

Filed1 2 A pril 2 6Gary F i t z s iD is tr ic t C leD a lla s D is b

NO. DC-12-036S9

Defendants.

§ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PAMELA MARTIN-DUARTE,

Plaintiff,

v .

DENA MILLER and BONNIE BLOSSMAN

MYER,

193RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORIGINAL ANSWER AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF DEFENDANT DENA MILLER

Defendant Dena Miller ("Miller") hereby files her Original Answer to the First Amended

Original Petition of Plaintiff Pamela Martin-Duarte ("Duarte") and her Request for Disclosure to

Duarte.

SUMMARY OF THE ANSWER

MILLER DENIES MAKING ANY OF THE STATEMENTS UPON WHICH DUARTE BASES HER

CIVIL ACTION AND DENIES ALL OF DUARTE'S ALLEGATIONS IN PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED

ORIGINAL PETITION.

Duarte appears on a television reality show called "Big Rich Texas," which films a

number of women and their daughters, all purported to be Dallas socialites and members of an

alleged SOI(c)3 nonprofit organization, The Fashionistas, Inc., as they engage in interactions at

their homes and their Forth Worth, Texas country club. On the show, Duarte has repeatedly

uttered an array of vulgarities: she has called various of her cast mates "a drunk," "a £*%$#!&

liar," "a sociopath," "a con artist," "a piece of s@#!," and "a b*!@S," and claimed one looked

like a "hooker." On film she has claimed the word "c*$!" is a cast mate's nickname, opined

"that b* !@S can't afford to open a paper bag," told cast mates to "£*%$ off' and to "get the




f*%$ out of my state," and told a male tennis pro, "keep your balls in your pants." She has

thrown numerous temper tantrums on the show, escalating minor disagreements to public

meltdowns, such as when she began yelling "f*%$ off' at a cast mate's housewarming party or

"f*%$ you" at a country club cocktail party. Though she reportedly will not allow producers or

cast members to ask about her husband's occupation, she has expressly undertaken "recon" on

another cast mate and has lashed out at those whom she perceives to have greater financial

resources, class, or beauty than she. Incredibly, after working for two (2) seasons in the above

manner to portray herself across the globe (the show is distributed as far away as South Africa)

as repellant, coarse, jealous, common and just plain mean, Duarte has filed a lawsuit against cast

mate Bonnie Blossman and against Miller, who was originally slated to be on the show, claiming

they have made statements that somehow damaged her reputation. This, despite the fact that

Duarte has been described publicly as "being a mean-spirited, big-mouthed, bullying witch,"

"the biggest two-faced b*!@S," a "jealous liar," "a reptilian b*!@S," a "disgusting b*!@S," a

"villain," a "stripper," a "whore," and the "most tacky and bile person ever to walk the planet."

Even apart from the fact that Miller did not make the statements in issue, Duarte's claims

are barred. In her pursuit of fame, Duarte accepted the offer to go on a reality show and, for

whatever reason, allowed herself to be filmed as she behaved in the aforesaid fashion. In doing

so, Duarte expressly and impliedly consented to allow (indeed, she invited) the public to describe

her in any manner they choose. Common sense must rule the day: Duarte's consent to be on a

reality show, her own intentional and extreme conduct which invites comment and response and

damages her reputation beyond repair, and, upon information and belief, her express release in

written and oral agreements of the very claims she now brings wholly bar the instant lawsuit.

Surely Duarte does not have a cause of action against the housewife in Peoria who calls her a




"pathological liar" or a "stripper" - in sum, such a discussion and the conduct of which she

complains in the instant case "goes with the territory."

GENERAL DENIAL

Pursuant to Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Miller denies each and every

allegation in Plaintiffs First Amended Original Petition. Miller respectfully requests that Duarte

be required to prove her claims against Miller by a preponderance of the evidence as is required

by the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas.

DEFENSES, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND OTHER RESPONSES

Miller pleads the following defenses, affirmative defenses, and other responses to the

allegations in Plaintiff s First Amended Original Petition:

1. Miller pleads the defense of consent. Duarte's claims are barred because Duarte

has expressly and impliedly consented to the publication of any alleged defamatory statements

through, among other things, various agreements in which Duarte expressly acknowledged that

defamatory statements would be made about her and her actions, including her actions on the Big

Rich Texas show.

2. Miller pleads the defense of settlement and release. Upon information and belief,

Duarte's claims are barred because Duarte has expressly and impliedly released Miller from all

of the claims and causes of action she brings through various agreements into which she has

entered.

3. Miller pleads the defense of truth. Duarte's claims are barred because the

statements complained of and/or the gist of those statements are true and/or substantially true.

Duarte cannot show that any statements made were false.

ORIGINAL ANSWER ANDREQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF DEFENDANT DENA MILLER



4. Miller pleads the defense of absolute and/or qualified privilege. Duarte's claims

are barred because Miller was fully and/or conditionally justified and/or privileged to make the

alleged statements.

5. Miller pleads the defense of justification. Miller was justified in making any

alleged statements or taking any alleged actions.

6. Miller pleads the defense that Duarte is libel and/or slander-proof. Any alleged

defamatory statements regarding Duarte did not cause any injury to Duarte because Duarte had

no reputation to lose. Alternatively, Duarte's reputation had previously been diminished before

any statements were allegedly made by Miller. Duarte cannot show that she suffered any actual

injury as a direct and/or proximate cause and/or as a result of any statement made byMiller.

7. Miller pleads that Duarte cannot show the requisite level of intent and/or

knowledge of alleged falsity required with regard to the statements in issue. Specifically, Duarte

is a public figure for purposes of this lawsuit. In the alternative, Duarte is a limited-purpose

public figure for purposes of this lawsuit.

8. The matters complained of by Duarte were published without actual malice or any

other degree of fault required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution and the laws of the State of Texas.

9. Duarte cannot satisfy her burden of proof in this case to show that any alleged

defamatory statements were statements of fact. Any alleged defamatory statements are

expressions of opinion and/or were statements made in good faith on a subject matter in which

Miller had a common interest with Duarte.

10. Duarte cannot satisfy her burden of proof in this case to show that Miller made

any alleged defamatory statements or that any alleged defamatory statements referred to Duarte.




11. Duarte cannot satisfy her burden of proof in this case to show that Miller knew or

should have known that any of the alleged statementsmade were false.

12. Duarte cannot satisfy her burden of proof in this case to show that the content of

any statement made by Miller was foreseeably defamatory.

13. Duarte cannot show that she suffered any actual injury because of any statement

made by Miller.

14. Duarte's alleged injuries were the result of Duarte's own acts or omissions or

contributed to Duarte's alleged injuries.

15. Duarte has herself published the allegedly defamatory statements and therefore

has no damages related to such statements.

16. Duarte has failed to mitigate her damages.

PROPORTIONATE RESPONSIBILITY

17. In accordance with Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code,

and with respect to any damages suffered by any claimant in this litigation, Miller also requests

that the trier of fact determine the percentage of responsibility for: (1) all of the parties in this

litigation, including any parties subsequently joined in this litigation; (2) any settling person; or

(3) any responsible third party.

REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Miller requests that Duarte disclose the

information or material described in Rule 194.2within 30 days of service of this request.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Miller prays that Duarte take nothing by her suit and that Miller have judgment for costs,

attorney's fees, and such further relief, at law or equity, to which she isjustly entitled.




Dated: April Z~ , 2012 Respectfully submitted,

~<6\ ' I ' f \ . ~ .

D'Lesli M. Davis

State Bar No. [email protected]

Michael c. SteindorfState Bar No. 19134800

[email protected]

James V. Leito IV

State Bar No. 24054950

[email protected]

Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800

Dallas, TX 75201-2784Telephone: (214) 855-8000

Facsimile: (214) 855-8200

Amy Witherite

State Bar No. 00788698

[email protected]

Eberstein &Witherite LLP

3100 Monticello Ave., Ste 500

Dallas, TX 75205-3432

Telephone: (214) 378-6665Facsimile: (214) 378-6670

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

DENA MILLER


mailto:[email protected]








miller answer and rfd filed 04 26 12

Documents