The Cuban influencer Flor de Cuba has secured an early legal victory in her defamation lawsuit against Alexander Otaola in the United States, as a judge has refused the presenter's request to dismiss the case. According to Flor's own Instagram post, the judge determined that there is sufficient legal basis for the proceedings to continue toward a trial. "Today justice spoke: I WON the hearing against Otaola. The judge found that his attacks were made with actual malice, acknowledged emotional harm, and denied his motion to dismiss the case," Flor wrote on her account.
Flor explained that this hearing was to determine whether the lawsuit met the minimum legal requirements to proceed or should be dismissed: "His defense tried to argue that this didn't hold because they were protected by freedom of speech, but the judge was clear in determining that it wasn't freedom of speech; these were words intended to harm... he found that there was intent to defame, to cause harm, and to provoke negative consequences for me."
Allegations Against Otaola
Flor detailed that four charges were presented against Otaola on Friday: "The first was defamation, the second was defamation through various media outlets he has with a distributor named Otaca, the third was emotional distress, and the fourth was cyberbullying, stalking, and media harassment on the internet."
The influencer has publicly denounced that Otaola has accused her of being a communist, a spy for State Security, money laundering, acting as a sex worker for the Castro family, and even running a human trafficking network and pimping young Cuban women, all without evidence.
According to Flor, these accusations have led to severe personal and professional consequences, including the closure of her academy in Cuba, commercial boycotts, threats, and attacks on social media.
What Does This Hearing Mean Legally?
The judge's decision to deny the motion to dismiss is crucial in the American legal system. In such cases, judges assess whether, assuming all allegations by the plaintiff are true, the lawsuit holds legal merit to proceed to trial.
The judge likely considered the standard of "actual malice," a pivotal concept in defamation suits in the U.S., which requires demonstrating that the defendant acted knowing the statements were false or with reckless disregard for the truth. The fact that the judge has allowed the case to proceed to trial suggests that there is enough basis to consider that Otaola's statements might not be protected by the First Amendment (freedom of speech) if proven malicious and harmful.
Next Step: Trial
Flor de Cuba announced that the legal process will now proceed, requiring Otaola to present evidence in court to support all the accusations he has made against her. "He will have to prove in court that I am a communist, a spy, that I launder money, and even other more serious inventions that anyone can see are pure lies," the influencer stated.
Legal Implications of the Defamation Lawsuit
What is the significance of the judge denying the motion to dismiss?
The denial of the motion to dismiss indicates that the judge believes there is sufficient legal basis for the case to proceed to trial, suggesting that the allegations against Otaola have enough merit under the law.
What does "actual malice" mean in a defamation case?
"Actual malice" in a defamation case means that the defendant made a statement knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for its truthfulness. This is a higher standard of proof required in defamation cases involving public figures.
What are the possible consequences for Otaola if he fails to prove his accusations?
If Otaola fails to prove his accusations, he could face significant legal penalties, including damages for defamation, emotional distress, and possibly other related charges.