Meghan Markle may have to face her half-sister Samantha Markle in court again, as Samantha’s lawyers are preparing to challenge a previous verdict in a defamation case.
In an interview with Oprah Winfrey, Meghan had claimed she was mostly raised as an only child, stating Samantha only changed her surname back to Markle when Meghan began dating Prince Harry.Samantha’s legal team argued these comments were “disparaging, hurtful, and false. Although Meghan won the initial case in Florida, Samantha has now taken the lawsuit to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal, with a July deadline for her lawyers to file their initial brief, according to Express UK.
A court filing shown to Newsweek reveals the latest strategy, reading: “Cumulative inferences and remarks made by [Meghan] have caused a cumulative meaning, which the court did not consider.” Samantha’s lawyers will argue that the original judge evaluated Meghan’s comments individually without considering their collective impact.
In Meghan and Harry’s Netflix documentary series, Meghan commented, “I was with my mom during the week and with my dad on the weekends. And my dad lived alone, he had two adult children who had moved out of his house. I don’t remember seeing her [Samantha] when I was a kid at my dad’s house, if and when they would come around.”
Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell initially dismissed the case, stating that Meghan “barely mentions [Samantha], to say only that at some point during [Meghan’s] childhood, [Samantha] moved out of her father’s house. It is not plausible that [Samantha] would be exposed to hatred, ridicule, or contempt as a result of this statement.”
Samantha’s lawyers will attempt to claim that Meghan was constructing a “broader attack” across multiple interviews. They will argue that the combined effect of these remarks was not properly considered in the original decision.
Lawyers for the Duchess of Sussex have indicated that they will contest the appeal. They believe the judge adhered to standard procedures in what they see as a routine defamation case. “This is a garden-variety defamation action involving the application of well-established Eleventh Circuit precedent, which the District Court followed,” they said.
In an interview with Oprah Winfrey, Meghan had claimed she was mostly raised as an only child, stating Samantha only changed her surname back to Markle when Meghan began dating Prince Harry.Samantha’s legal team argued these comments were “disparaging, hurtful, and false. Although Meghan won the initial case in Florida, Samantha has now taken the lawsuit to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal, with a July deadline for her lawyers to file their initial brief, according to Express UK.
A court filing shown to Newsweek reveals the latest strategy, reading: “Cumulative inferences and remarks made by [Meghan] have caused a cumulative meaning, which the court did not consider.” Samantha’s lawyers will argue that the original judge evaluated Meghan’s comments individually without considering their collective impact.
In Meghan and Harry’s Netflix documentary series, Meghan commented, “I was with my mom during the week and with my dad on the weekends. And my dad lived alone, he had two adult children who had moved out of his house. I don’t remember seeing her [Samantha] when I was a kid at my dad’s house, if and when they would come around.”
Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell initially dismissed the case, stating that Meghan “barely mentions [Samantha], to say only that at some point during [Meghan’s] childhood, [Samantha] moved out of her father’s house. It is not plausible that [Samantha] would be exposed to hatred, ridicule, or contempt as a result of this statement.”
Samantha’s lawyers will attempt to claim that Meghan was constructing a “broader attack” across multiple interviews. They will argue that the combined effect of these remarks was not properly considered in the original decision.
Lawyers for the Duchess of Sussex have indicated that they will contest the appeal. They believe the judge adhered to standard procedures in what they see as a routine defamation case. “This is a garden-variety defamation action involving the application of well-established Eleventh Circuit precedent, which the District Court followed,” they said.
