State civil case · Hampden Superior Court No. 1879CV00344
Waters v. Kearney
A seven-year defamation case reached appellate reversal twice. This record audit begins with the 2018 default, the 2019 injunction and summary-judgment proceedings, and the first appellate decision, which restored a libel claim based on accusations that Rian Waters sold and shipped drugs.
The case in two minutes
Most of the first judgment was affirmed. One consequential legal error was independently confirmed.
The first appellate decision is useful precisely because it is mixed. It did not accept every claim Waters made. It affirmed most of the 2019 judgment, identified serious deficiencies in the appellate appendix, and nevertheless held that the trial court used the wrong rule for two accusations of crime.
What the record establishes
- Defaults entered against the defendants in September 2018 and were later removed.
- A broad injunction request was denied after two hearings.
- The defendants’ dismissal motion was converted to summary judgment because the court considered outside evidence.
- The trial court disposed of every remaining count in 2019.
- The Appeals Court reinstated the part of Count IV based on accusations of selling and shipping drugs.
- A later dismissal for failure to prosecute was vacated after the Appeals Court found both stated reasons incorrect.
What this page does not claim
- The first Appeals Court panel did not reverse the entire 2019 judgment.
- It did not reach the default order as a timely appeal.
- It did not decide every allegation of harassment or intimidation.
- It expressly said missing appendix materials made several arguments difficult or impossible to evaluate.
- The later appellate reversal did not itself decide the surviving libel claim on the merits.
Two-minute reader
Read this overview, the flagship comparison, and the first-appeal result.
Five-minute verifier
Open the trial decision at pages 7–8 and the appellate decision at PDF pages 13–14.
Full-record auditor
Expand the issue sections and compare the pleadings, motions, transcripts, rulings, docket, and appeal.
Procedural architecture
One case, three adjudicative cycles.
The detailed audit below covers the first cycle. The later cycles are summarized so a reader can understand the full procedural consequence without being forced through the entire record at once.
Complaint to first remand
2018–2021
Default, amended pleadings, injunction proceedings, conversion to summary judgment, dismissal of all claims, and a partial appellate reversal restoring two drug-related libel statements.
First remand to second reversal
2021–2024
The surviving claim returned to Superior Court. Motions concerning protection, sanctions, and injunction relief preceded a dismissal for failure to prosecute. The Appeals Court later found both stated dismissal reasons incorrect and vacated the judgment.
Second remand to stipulated dismissal
2024–2025
New injunction requests, a nonappearance default, litigation over removing that default, additional sanctions disputes, trial scheduling, and a July 2025 stipulation dismissing the case with prejudice.
Act I · 2018–2021
From complaint to first appellate correction.
This chronology is drawn from the docket, court-stamped filings, hearing transcripts, the 2019 memorandum of decision, and the Appeals Court’s Rule 23.0 memorandum and order.
-
Complaint, amendment, service
Waters filed a defamation action on May 16, amended it on June 1, and obtained in-hand service on Kearney and the two entity defendants. The pleadings concerned a January 2017 blog; later pleadings added a May 2018 live show and Kearney’s November 2018 book.
-
Default entered, then removed
Rule 55(a) defaults entered September 18. A first motion to remove default was denied. A renewed motion was allowed after a November 20 hearing, with answers due by November 26.
-
Second amended complaint and injunction hearings
The court allowed a second amended complaint. Waters then sought a broad order removing and restraining publications that referenced him, stopping contact, and advancing the case. Hearings were held January 9 and 17. The court denied relief.
-
Dismissal motion converted to Rule 56
Because the defendants submitted affidavits and the court chose to consider them, the court converted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to a summary-judgment motion, allowed further submissions, and held a March 12 hearing.
-
All remaining claims disposed of
The Superior Court issued a thirteen-page memorandum allowing summary judgment or dismissal on all remaining counts. Judgment entered in late June; unserved John Doe claims were separately dismissed July 8. Waters filed a July 3 notice of appeal.
-
First partial reversal and remand
In No. 20-P-88, the Appeals Court affirmed most of the judgment but reversed the dismissal of Count IV insofar as it concerned statements that Waters sold drugs in California and shipped drugs to Massachusetts. The rescript reached Superior Court in September.
Claim map
What the second amended complaint placed before the courts.
This table distinguishes claims dismissed voluntarily, claims resolved by the trial court, claims reviewed on appeal, and the one portion that returned for trial.
| Count | Claim or subject | 2019 trial-court result | First appellate result |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | Libel against unidentified John Doe writers | Summary judgment; unserved Doe claims separately dismissed | John Does were not parties to the appeal |
| II | Libel against the entity defendants based on the 2017 blog | Summary judgment; challenged statements treated principally as opinion | Affirmed |
| III & VI | Claims against Samantha Cardin | Voluntarily dismissed January 9, 2019 | Not before the appellate panel |
| IV | Libel against Kearney based on statements in I Am Turtleboy | Summary judgment on all five challenged statements | Reversed in part Drug-sale and drug-shipment accusations restored; remainder affirmed |
| V | Slander based on statements during a live show | Summary judgment based on LLC-liability statute | Affirmed on different grounds |
| VII | Intentional infliction of emotional distress | Dismissed for failure to allege sufficiently extreme and outrageous conduct | Affirmed |
| VIII | Negligent publication | Dismissed because it was not a separate cause of action | Affirmed |
| IX | Fraud | Dismissed for insufficient particularity and lack of pleaded inducement or detrimental reliance | Affirmed |
| X | Loss of consortium | Dismissed; the court held Waters could not assert the claim as pleaded | Affirmed |
Issue 1 · Default
The defendants missed the answer deadline. The court restored their opportunity to defend.
The default record presents a genuine dispute over whether the omission was excusable neglect or a deliberate litigation choice. The first appeal did not have jurisdiction to review the removal order as a timely appeal, but it also explained why the panel would have affirmed on the merits.
Defendants’ position
Kearney’s affidavit said settlement-related emails and a police report distracted him from the case, that counsel was contacted promptly after notice of default, and that the defendants had potential defenses including truth and third-party authorship.
Waters’s position
Waters argued that the nonresponse was deliberate; that the emails reflected settlement discussions, not a reason to ignore the suit; that the defendants had publicly discussed strategic default; and that they had not shown a supported meritorious defense to each claim.
Court disposition
A first motion was denied. After a hearing on the renewed motion, the Superior Court removed the default and ordered answers by November 26, 2018. Reconsideration was denied.
Compare the parties’ default arguments
Defense showing
- Service occurred June 1, 2018.
- Default entered September 18.
- Counsel was contacted after the default notice.
- The renewed motion invoked the preference for decisions on the merits.
- The affidavit identified truth and third-party publication as potential defenses.
Waters’s response
- The defendants knew they had been sued and were properly served.
- The submitted email chain did not say what the affidavit attributed to it.
- Public statements were offered as evidence of deliberate default.
- The defense showing was challenged as conclusory and incomplete across a multi-count action.
- Waters argued delay could create evidentiary and collectability prejudice.
What the first Appeals Court said
The panel held that the appeal from the default-removal order was untimely and therefore outside its jurisdiction. It nevertheless stated that Waters would not prevail on the merits. The panel emphasized the affidavit, the prompt response after notice of default, the presentation of potential defenses, and the early procedural stage.
“Given these circumstances, particularly the fact that the motion to remove the default was early in the proceedings, we conclude that the motion judge did not abuse her discretion.”
The appellate opinion also noted that the November 20 hearing transcript was not included in the appellate record. That matters because the trial court’s short written endorsement did not itself set out a factor-by-factor explanation.
Issue 2 · Injunction and litigation safety
The asserted safety problem and the requested remedy should be evaluated separately.
Waters said continuing publications, threats, and harassment were impairing his ability to litigate and deterring witness participation. The relief requested in January 2019 was also exceptionally broad: it sought removal of all articles or blogs referencing him, a prohibition on further references, a no-contact provision, and an accelerated merits proceeding.
Waters asked for
Removal and restraint of publications referencing him, no further contact, and advancement of the merits proceeding. His memorandum argued continuing harm, defamation per se, and impairment of his ability to present witnesses and evidence.
Defendants answered
The defendants argued that Waters had not supported the injunction factors, that the challenged material was protected expression or opinion, and that their pending dismissal motion demonstrated a lack of likely success.
The court ruled
After January 9 and 17 hearings, the court found neither a likelihood of success on the merits nor irreparable harm from denial. A later motion to reconsider was denied because the additional submission did not change the court’s likelihood-of-success finding.
Read the request, opposition, hearings, and rulings
The January 9 transcript records Waters reporting new publications, third-party threats, and difficulty functioning. The January 17 transcript records his concern that witnesses would be publicly targeted, his request to advance the trial, and the defense response that the pending dismissal motion should be heard first.
Supporting exhibits concerning online harassment and witness reluctance — content warning
These exhibits were offered to support Waters’s position that online targeting affected his safety, functioning, and ability to secure witness cooperation. Their inclusion here does not establish that every exhibit was authenticated, admitted, or adjudicated as Waters characterized it.
Issue 3 · Dispositive ruling
A dismissal motion became summary judgment, and every remaining claim was terminated.
The defendants attached affidavits and other evidence to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Waters asked whether the outside material would be excluded. The court chose to consider it, converted the motion under Rule 56, allowed supplemental materials through March 11, and held a March 12 hearing.
February 1
Conversion ordered
The court stated that because it would accept the defendants’ affidavits, it would treat the motion as summary judgment.
March 11
Supplement deadline
Waters filed a supplementary brief and affidavit centered heavily on asserted intimidation and the need for protective measures.
March 12
Rule 56 hearing
Waters stated he was not prepared to argue but proceeded. The court walked through several defense arguments and took the matter under advisement.
Procedural documents for conversion and the Rule 56 hearing
Flagship documentary comparison
The controlling legal argument was presented before judgment.
This was not a rule first invented on appeal. Waters’s January 2019 injunction memorandum argued that imputing crime is defamatory per se and that repeating a charge with a hearsay preface does not remove its defamatory character. His February opposition repeated those authorities. At the March hearing, he again identified accusations that he sold and shipped drugs and argued that accusations of crime were defamatory per se.
Trial court · June 2019
The court treated “according to” and “allegedly” as cautionary language signaling speculation and held the first four book statements nonactionable.
Appeals Court · August 2021
“An imputation of crime is defamatory per se,” even when the charge is qualified by “it is alleged” or introduced with a truthful preface that someone else made the accusation.
Issue-by-issue audit
Expand only the level of detail you need.
Each section identifies the parties’ positions, the trial ruling, the appellate disposition, and what the result does—or does not—prove.
1. Book accusations that Waters sold and shipped drugs — reversed
Waters argued
The accusations imputed crimes, were false, and remained actionable even when attributed to another speaker or prefaced with “allegedly.”
Trial court held
“According to” and “allegedly” were cautionary terms that signaled speculation; the statements therefore were not actionable.
Appeals Court held
The accusations stood on different footing because imputing crime is defamatory per se; qualifiers and truthful attribution do not erase that character.
Audit conclusion: this is the clearest first-cycle example of a legal rule presented below, rejected by the trial court, and later adopted on appeal.
2. Other book statements concerning assault and the dog — affirmed on a limited record
Defendants presented
Cardin’s affidavit and criminal, police, photographic, and veterinary materials to support truth or substantial truth.
Trial court held
The defense materials negated falsity and Waters had not met Rule 56 with counter-affidavits or concrete evidence.
Appeals Court held
Because key materials relied on below were absent from the appendix, the panel could not say the trial judge erred as to those statements.
Audit conclusion: the affirmance is part merits analysis and part record consequence. A fair page must show both. The first appeal did not independently resolve every factual dispute on a complete evidentiary record.
3. January 2017 blog statements — affirmed
The trial court treated most challenged blog statements as expressions of opinion when read in the article’s full context. It separately held that two factual statements—where Waters lived and the timing of Facebook posts—were not shown to be reputationally damaging or economically harmful.
The Appeals Court reached the same general conclusion, relying heavily on contextual cautionary language and noting that the blog itself was missing from the appendix even though the trial judge had relied on it.
4. Live-show slander claim — affirmed for a different reason
The trial court held that the LLC statute was fatal to individual liability against Kearney. The Appeals Court did not rely on that reasoning. It held instead that the described statements were subjective opinions or substantially true and therefore nonactionable on the available record.
Why this distinction matters: an affirmance does not necessarily approve the trial court’s rationale. Appellate courts may affirm summary judgment on another ground supported by the record.
5. Emotional-distress, negligent-publication, fraud, and consortium claims — affirmed
- Intentional infliction: the trial court found the pleaded conduct insufficiently extreme and outrageous; the appeal also treated it as derivative of the unsuccessful blog defamation claim.
- Negligent publication: both courts treated it as a defamation fault theory rather than a separate cause of action.
- Fraud: the complaint did not plead the required inducement and detrimental reliance with particularity.
- Loss of consortium: the claim was not viable as Waters pleaded it.
6. Appellate-record completeness — an important limitation, not a footnote
The panel said Waters omitted the second amended complaint, though the court obtained it from the Superior Court. It also identified the blog, police records, criminal complaint, victim-impact statement, photographs, and veterinary report as missing materials essential to issues raised on appeal.
The omissions made it “difficult, if not impossible, to properly evaluate many of Waters’s arguments.”
Practical lesson: a record-grounded reform project should not hide this. The missing appendix limited independent review and contributed to affirmance. It also shows why source custody, record redundancy, and clear appellate checklists matter to self-represented litigants.
First appellate decision
The correct headline is partial reversal—not total vindication and not total defeat.
The August 19, 2021 decision was a summary decision under Massachusetts Appeals Court Rule 23.0. It may be cited for persuasive value but is not binding precedent. Its mixed disposition is what makes it a strong documentary anchor.
Affirmed
Most of the 2019 judgment
The panel affirmed the blog, live-show, emotional-distress, negligent-publication, fraud, and consortium dispositions; found no error on the limited injunction record; and held the default appeal untimely.
Reversed
Two accusations of drug crimes
The panel restored the part of Count IV based on statements that Waters sold drugs in California and shipped drugs to Massachusetts through the mail.
“Accordingly, we reverse so much of the judgment entered in favor of Kearney on Waters’s libel claim that is based on the statements that Waters sold drugs in California and shipped drugs to Massachusetts via USPS.”
Acts II and III · Orientation
The first correction did not bring the case to a prompt merits resolution.
The later record is extensive. These summaries identify only the procedural spine and the documents needed to verify it.
Act II · 2021 remand, 2022 dismissal, 2024 reversal
-
Count IV returned to Superior Court
The drug-related libel theory became the sole surviving merits claim.
-
Sanctions/default and injunction motions filed
Waters filed a sanctions/default motion in May and new TRO/PI materials in June. The supplied docket lists no separate written opposition to the May sanctions motion before its August denial.
-
Injunction denied
An endorsement said the four-year-old case had “spun off its axis,” emphasized the only remaining drug-libel claim, and set a final pretrial conference.
-
Case dismissed for failure to prosecute
The dismissal order cited “no witnesses” and inability to articulate damages after the final pretrial conference.
-
Both stated dismissal reasons found incorrect
The Appeals Court held that Waters remained available as a witness, that defamation per se did not require proof of economic loss, and that his affidavits described testimony concerning harm. The judgment was vacated.
Act III · 2024 remand to July 2025 stipulated dismissal
After the second remand, Waters filed an emergency preliminary-injunction motion in December 2024. A January 2025 status conference was not held because the defendants failed to appear, and default entered. The defendants later appeared through counsel and moved to remove the default. The court initially allowed removal, then acknowledged on reconsideration that the showing of a meritorious defense had been conclusory and required a supporting affidavit. After a new affidavit, the court again removed default and set trial.
Additional sanctions and injunction disputes followed. On July 7, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation dismissing the case with prejudice. The stipulation ended the case without a trial on the reinstated libel claim.
Why lawmakers should care
The record illustrates correctable failure points without requiring Congress to retry the case.
A legislative reader need not decide every disputed fact to see the institutional design questions. The reforms concern explanation, reviewability, records, and timely correction—not a legislative verdict for either party.
Minimal findings
Consequential rulings should identify the controlling standard, material facts, and principal reason with enough specificity to expose a conflict such as the qualifier rule applied to accusations of crime.
Expedited plain-error review
A narrow correction path could address a clear, consequential legal mismatch before an ordinary appeal consumes years and the surrounding harm compounds.
Record integrity and access
The first appeal shows how missing appendix materials can block meaningful review. Standardized, redundant, searchable records and clear self-represented-litigant checklists would reduce that failure.
Primary-source library
Audit the record in the order the decisions were made.
Start with the docket and judicial decisions. Use the party filings to understand what each court had been asked to decide. The links below lead to court-stamped filings or source documents hosted on this site.
Core first-cycle record
Default record
Injunction record
Appeal-validity record
Waters filed his notice of appeal after the June judgment but before the separate July dismissal of unserved John Doe defendants. After a procedural dispute, the Superior Court allowed his renewed motion to treat the notice as valid.
Stage Four
Post-remand misconduct, attachment, and group-chat evidence
The problem escalated
After the case returned from appeal, I sought protection and later moved to attach Defendant’s bank account. On the same day the attachment motion was served, Kearney tried to frame me for threatening his children and coordinated the effort through a Facebook group chat.
Why this page limits the details
The group-chat and witness-intimidation record is large enough to justify its own page. This page summarizes the issue and links to the most important proof, while the full intimidation record can be presented separately.
Protection, attachment, and related documents
Stage Five
June 2022: unopposed misconduct motions and the “spun off its axis” endorsement
What was pending
I filed sanctions/default and injunction motions addressing the November 2021 conspiracy and related threats. Defendant did not respond to the motions, and a subpoena issued requiring him to appear at the hearing.
What the court did
Rather than make findings on the unopposed misconduct and witness-threat issues, the court reframed the case as having “spun off its axis” and stated that the only remaining claim was the libel claim based on statements in Kearney’s book.
Key endorsement
“First, this is not an emergency, more importantly, this 4 year old case has spun off its axis. The ONLY remaining claim in this case is Count 4 alleging a claim for libel based on statements in Kearny’s book, that Water sold drugs. Final PTC on 8/30/22 in person. The trial date to be set.”
June 2022 service, subpoena, and motion record
Stage Six
August 2022: sanctions denied without explanation, then dismissal
Final pretrial conference
At the August 30, 2022 final pretrial conference, I raised that the sanctions/default motion had never been ruled on. The court denied it on the spot and moved directly toward trial issues without explaining the ruling.
Witness-safety problem
I explained that I could not present additional witnesses safely unless the court addressed misconduct and witness protection. The case was then dismissed for stated reasons the Appeals Court later found incorrect.
August 2022 hearing and dismissal documents
Stage Seven
The Appeals Court reversed again
Trial court said
“Mr. Waters indicated that he had ‘no witnesses’; and that he was unable to articulate his damages.”
Order of Dismissal, August 31, 2022.
Appeals Court said
“The judge’s stated reasons for the dismissal—that ‘Waters indicated that he had no witnesses’; and that he was ‘unable to articulate his damages’—were incorrect.”
Appeal Memorandum and Order, p. 4.
Why this matters
This is one of the clearest proof points in the case. The trial court dismissed the case based on stated reasons that the Appeals Court later found incorrect. That shows the problem was not merely disagreement over discretion; it was a dispositive ruling built on an inaccurate account of the record.
Stage Eight
After reversal, the default problem repeated
December 13, 2024
After the Appeals Court reversed in my favor, I called Kearney to ask where he wanted to be served with a preliminary-injunction motion. He told me he would not respond and not to mail him anything, then claimed I had threatened him. I immediately contacted police and filed a report.
Default and vacatur repeated
I filed an emergency preliminary-injunction motion and asked the court to address service and safety issues. After Defendant failed to appear, default entered again. Defendant then moved to vacate default, relying on a conclusory meritorious-defense claim, while the court again avoided meaningful enforcement of the default standard.
December 2024 and 2025 default documents
Conclusion
Why this record matters
Waters v. Kearney shows how a civil case can be derailed when courts do not meaningfully enforce default rules, protect witnesses, address misconduct, or accurately account for the record before issuing dispositive rulings.
The appellate reversals matter because they confirm that key trial-court outcomes were not simply unfavorable. They were built on errors serious enough to require correction.
This page is part of the broader 40 Days Warning record because due process cannot depend on whether a litigant can survive years of intimidation, procedural confusion, and unreasoned rulings long enough to be heard.