Jonathan Mendelsohn
Samantha Markle, who is Meghan Markle‘s estranged sister, is refiling her defamation claim against the Duchess of Sussex. Samantha’s recent $75,000 claim against Meghan Markle was thrown out by a Florida judge.
Videos by Rare
Samantha Markle filed her first lawsuit against her sister after Meghan and Prince Harry’s 2021 interview with Oprah Winfrey. Samantha’s case claimed that Meghan made “demonstrably false and malicious statements.”
Meghan Markle’s Sisterly Feud
Samantha’s lawyer, Jamie Sasson, spoke on the case, calling it “unfortunate” that the initial case was thrown out. Sasson told Telegraph, “We look forward to presenting an even stronger argument for the defamation and losses that our client has had to endure.” Sasson also said that he and his team “vehemently oppose the narrative” that Meghan Markle is not guilty.
Samantha was apparently heartbroken when she saw that Meghan told Winfrey that she grew up as an only child. Regarding the case, it was stated that Meghan, “orchestrated the campaign to defame and destroy her sister’s and her father’s reputation and credibility in order to preserve and promote the false ‘rags-to-royalty’ narrative [Meghan] had fabricated about her life to the Royal Family and the worldwide media.”
Sasson spoke further on the matter, saying, “This upcoming amendment will address certain legal issues that are related to our claims for defamation as it specifically relates to the Oprah interview on CBS.” Sasson and his team will have to refile the complaint within 14 days.
The original claim stated that Samantha was forced to face “humiliation and hatred” after her sister’s statements to Winfrey. US District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell dismissed the case initially because he found that a person’s opinion is not something that would make them legally culpable.
Honeywell stated, “As a reasonable listener would understand it, Defendant merely expresses an opinion about her childhood and her relationship with her half-siblings. Thus, the Court finds that Defendant’s statement is not objectively verifiable or subject to empirical proof. Plaintiff cannot plausibly disprove Defendant’s opinion of her own childhood.”
Meghan Markle‘s lawyer, Michael Kump, believes that she is entitled to her very publicized opinions. He said, “Not every perceived slight ought to be litigated and that’s true here. Plaintiff is taking issue with Meghan’s own impressions of her own childhood growing up but that’s not a proper subject matter for a court of law.”
