Appeals Court Tosses $75K Defamation Fee in GOP Jan. 6 Case

The Arizona Court of Appeals has retracted a prior ruling that awarded attorney fees to former Democratic state lawmaker Charlene Fernandez. She had been sued by Republican officials, including State Sen. Mark Finchem, U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar, and former state legislator Anthony Kern, who accused her of defamation related to the events of January 6.

In a decision rendered Tuesday, the appellate court overturned a 2022 order requiring Finchem, Gosar, and Kern to pay $75,000 in legal fees to Fernandez. The lawsuit stemmed from Fernandez signing a letter alongside other Democratic legislators, which requested an FBI investigation into the three men’s alleged connections to the January 6 insurrection. Notably, the other 43 Democratic lawmakers who signed the letter were not included in the lawsuit.

Initially, a trial court judge ruled in favor of Fernandez, stating that the lawsuit against her was “groundless and not made in good faith.” The Republicans subsequently appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which directed the case back to the Court of Appeals for further examination. This was prompted by a new precedent set in 2024, narrowing the criteria for when plaintiffs can be ordered to cover their opponents’ attorney fees.

The Supreme Court’s ruling clarified that a claim must not only be groundless but that the plaintiff must also be aware of its lack of merit—or indifferent to that reality—when pursuing it. The appellate court was tasked with applying this new standard to analyze Fernandez’s attorney fee request.

In its unanimous decision, the Court of Appeals denied Fernandez’s appeal for legal fees. “We deny her request because Plaintiff’s appeal of the superior court’s fee award was successful and therefore not brought ‘without substantial justification,’” the ruling stated. However, the court did uphold that the initial lawsuit was “meritless” and should have been dismissed.

The court further noted that the letter signed by Fernandez did not claim the plaintiffs directly participated in the January 6 events but merely called for an investigation into their involvement, rendering her failure to investigate them further reasonable. It criticized the lawsuit for relying on “hypothetical facts.”

While both Finchem and Kern have attempted to minimize their involvement in the January 6 incident, evidence indicates they were present at the Capitol during the violence. Video footage reportedly contradicts Finchem’s claims about his distance from the Capitol, showing him near the east steps after rioters breached security barriers. Similarly, Kern’s proximity to the Capitol on that day has also been scrutinized.