HARTFORD, Conn. — A suspended attorney who sued journalist Frank Parlato is asking a federal judge for remedies that courts have repeatedly held to be unconstitutional and legally impossible, according to a motion Parlato filed Friday seeking dismissal of the case.
The defamation case concerns Parlato’s reporting on Ambrose’s contentious divorce and custody proceedings. Ambrose is a former attorney and Hollywood television writer who was dismissed from the CBS series Instinct in 2018 after submitting a script that tracked a previously aired episode of Bones. He has filed two similar defamation actions in the same court—one against blogger Tina Swithin and another against psychiatrist Dr. Bandy Lee, who described him as showing “characteristics of a psychopath.” Each lawsuit challenges commentary related to Ambrose’s family-court history.
In a new filing, Parlato argues that plaintiff Christopher A. Ambrose — an NYU-trained lawyer whose license is suspended — has requested forms of relief that federal courts “may not grant under any circumstances,” including lifetime bans on speech, compelled retractions, removal of published reporting, and censorship of third-party comments.
Parlato wrote Constitutionally protected articles on Ambrose.
Ambrose’s complaint asks the court to prohibit Parlato from publishing or republishing any statements about him on any platform. Parlato’s filing says such an order would constitute a prior restraint, quoting Supreme Court precedent describing prior restraints as “the most serious and least tolerable infringement of First Amendment rights.”
The motion states that Ambrose also seeks the removal of previously published articles and the suppression of comments written by other people. Parlato argues that no court can compel a publisher to delete speech or monitor third-party speech, citing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
A portion of Ambrose’s filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, where he seeks a permanent ban on Parlato publishing “directly or indirectly” about him and asks for the removal of all prior reporting.
The filing adds that Ambrose asks the court to order Parlato to issue a corrective statement about his reporting.
According to the motion, “Courts cannot force a journalist to issue a retraction or apology.”
Additional Arguments in the Motion
After outlining the constitutional issues, the motion turns to other grounds for dismissal.
Parlato argues the court lacks personal jurisdiction because he is a Florida resident with no presence or business in Connecticut. In the filing, he states:
“Defendant has never lived, worked, owned property, maintained employees, conducted business, or purposefully directed activities toward Connecticut.”
The motion says Ambrose fails to allege any conduct that satisfies Connecticut’s long-arm statute and that online journalism accessible in Connecticut does not establish jurisdiction.
Parlato also argues the complaint fails to state any actionable claim, stating that Ambrose did not identify specific false statements, relied on altered excerpts and ellipses, and did not plead damages with particularity.
According to the motion,
“Plaintiff repeatedly uses ellipses, altered excerpts, partial quotations, and paraphrases that misrepresent the alleged statements.”
The filing also characterizes Ambrose’s 109-page complaint as a “shotgun pleading,” forcing the defendant and court to speculate which facts relate to which claims.
Conclusion of the Filing
The motion ends by arguing that because the complaint contains constitutionally barred requests and fails to meet the minimum pleading standards required under federal law, the case should be dismissed with prejudice.
“No federal court may grant the remedies Plaintiff demands,” the motion states.
Parlato filed the motion pro se from Big Pine Key, Florida.
