Judge orders Patrick Reed to pay attorney fees and cost to defendants after his $750,000,000 lawsuit was dismissed

Modified Jan 08, 2024 11:02 GMT

LIV Golf Invitational - Miami - Previews — Patrick Reed during LIV Golf Miami 2023

Patrick Reed has been asked to pay attorney fees and costs to the defendants after his $750 million lawsuit against Brandel Chamblee and several other golf media members was dismissed twice.

The other defendants in the lawsuits were analyst Damon Hack, golf reporter Shane Ryan, Associated Press national golf writer Doug Ferguson, Golfweek, and its columnist Eamon Lynch.

US District Judge Timothy Corrigan had dismissed the lawsuit in November 2022 and then once again in September. On Friday, January 5, Corrigan rejected Reed's motion challenging him to reconsider his earlier decision.

Corrigan asked the law firms, who were representing the defendants, to file a motion for compensation for the fees and costs incurred in the lawsuit. Reed will have to respond before February 23, as per Jacksonville.com.

Corrigan was quoted as saying via Golfweek:

"Reed seeks solely to relitigate past arguments, old matters, and case law previously considered by the Court. He argues the Court ignored case law he cited and misstated the law. This is incorrect. The Court carefully reviewed and heard the briefs and arguments presented before issuing the dispositive Order.

Earlier in September, Corrigan wrote in his judgment that most of the comments were not on Patrick Reed but on LIV Golf, so it wasn't a personal attack on him.

"Some statements are about LIV Golf, of which Reed is a member but not specifically about Reed," Corrigan had written in the 78-page verdict. "Others are matters of opinion or permissible rhetorical hyperbole. Still others are statements of fact, the truth of which are not challenged."

Larry Klayman, Reed’s attorney, alleged that the PGA Tour and Golf Channel were on a mission to destroy his image as well as that of other players on the Saudi-backed circuit. He further stated that it was to promote their agenda to destroy LIV.

"Reed does not meet the required pleading of actual malice to hold the press liable for defamation," Corrigan stated in response. "While Reed may be frustrated at the negative media coverage he receives [some of which seems over the top], under Florida law and the First Amendment, Reed fails to bring actionable defamation claims and his cases therefore must be dismissed.”

Corrigan repeated in his recent ruling that the defendants were just exercising their constitutional right to free speech in their publications, considering Patrick Reed a public figure.