TALLAHASSEE , Fla. — A federal appeals court has cleared the way for a defamation lawsuit filed against former top state financial regulator Ronald Rubin by an attorney who sought a job at his agency.
A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld a district judge’s 2023 decision denying Rubin’s request for summary judgment in the lawsuit filed by Kimberly Grippa. The ruling effectively allows the case to move toward trial.
The defamation lawsuit is part of broader disputes related to the 2019 firing of Rubin as commissioner of the Florida Office of Financial Regulation after a controversy that included sexual-harassment allegations.
Grippa sought to become general counsel of the agency but Rubin declined to hire her. After he was later suspended and fired, Rubin accused then-state Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis and his “inner circle” of wrongdoing, according to court documents.
The disputes included Rubin filing a lawsuit against Tallahassee lobbyist R. Paul Mitchell, who had ties to Patronis. In a Leon County circuit-court document, Rubin contended that Mitchell, Patronis and other people “conspired” to get Rubin appointed as commissioner because they “believed they could control” him.
The document alleged, in part, that Mitchell and others wanted Grippa, whose ex-husband, Tony Grippa, was a Patronis supporter, to be appointed general counsel of the Office of Financial Regulation.
Rubin disputed the sexual-harassment accusations, which he contended were used to help fire him. He alleged that the firing was linked, in part, to his refusal to hire Kimberly Grippa.
After filing the lawsuit against Mitchell, Rubin’s then-attorney, Michael Tein, sent letters to Gov. Ron DeSantis and state Chief Inspector General Melinda Miguel asking for an investigation of Patronis and his “inner circle.”
Kimberly Grippa alleges in the federal lawsuit that she was defamed by the letters, which included attached documents from the lawsuit Rubin filed against Mitchell. The Mitchell lawsuit named Kimberly Grippa as part of an alleged “criminal enterprise,” according to the 2023 decision by Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker denying Rubin’s motion for summary judgment in the defamation case.
In seeking summary judgment, Rubin argued, in part, that the statements in the letters were shielded by what is known as “absolute litigation privilege.” That privilege applies to statements made in the course of lawsuits, according to Thursday’s ruling.
But the appeals court ruled the privilege did not shield statements in the letters sent to DeSantis and Miguel, saying it “applies only when the statement was made during a judicial proceeding and only if the statement was related to those proceedings.”
“Rubin’s lawyer took his allegations outside of his judicial proceeding by sending his complaint to uninvolved third parties with the hopes of launching a new investigation and stifling an ongoing one,” said the 21-page ruling, written by Judge Andrew Brasher and joined by Judges Ed Carnes and Charles Wilson. “In doing so, he acted outside the scope of the privilege.”
The ruling said the letters “did not simply provide public records from the proceedings. They instead alleged ‘improper, unethical and perhaps unlawful conduct on the part of … (an) enterprise.’ The attached documents amplified that allegation and connected it to Grippa. By adding this additional commentary, Rubin’s lawyer went beyond the scope of the ongoing proceedings.”
Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper in 2022 rejected Rubin’s allegations of wrongdoing by Mitchell.
Click here to download our free news, weather and smart TV apps. And click here to stream Channel 9 Eyewitness News live.
©2025 Cox Media Group
