Media Law Resource Center: When Celebrity Doctors Aren’t Celebrities: The Public Figure Question in Colker v. Callis

A federal judge in Connecticut has ruled that a defamation action brought by a celebrity doctor associated with WWE founder Vince McMahon may proceed. On March 13, 2026, Judge Sarah F. Russell denied a motion to dismiss in Colker et al v. Califs et al (D. Conn. March 13, 2026), holding that Defendants had not established at the pleading stage that the Plaintiffs—physician Carlon Colker and his medical practice, Peak Wellness, Inc.—were public figures. Colker and his practice are represented by Alejandro Brito of Brito, PLLC, who is known for bringing several defamation lawsuits on behalf of President Trump.

Background

This case arises from the broader litigation involving former WWE employee Janel Grant’s claims against WWE and its founder, McMahon. Grant, represented by Attorney Ann Callis of the Holland Law Firm in Missouri, filed suit in the Connecticut District Court alleging that she was a victim of sexual abuse and trafficking during her employment with WAVE. As part of those allegations, Grant asserted that McMahon directed aspects of her medical care and required her to see his doctor, Carlon Colker. Colker is the founder of Peak Wellness, a multidisciplinary, internal medicine and alternative therapy practice in Greenwich, Connecticut that serves numerous celebrity clients.

In 2024, Attorney Callus, on behalf of Grant, filed a bill of discovery in Connecticut Superior Court seeking medical records from Colker and his practice relating to his treatment of Grant. The bill of discovery alleged that Grant had reason to believe she had a potential cause of action against Colker based on, inter alia, that he had given her pills and IVs without telling her what they were, and that he possibly had discussions with McMahon about her medical care. On the same day that Grant opposed Colker’s motion to dismiss the bill of discovery, Attorney Callis issued a press release and held a press conference reiterating the allegations against Colker in the bill of discovery. Attorney Callis’s statements are now the subject of the instant defamation action, Colker et al. v. Callis et al.,in which Colker asserts a single claim of defamation per se against Callis and her law firm.

The Motion to Dismiss

On July 29, 2025, Attorney Callis moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs are public figures who failed to adequately plead actual malice. In support, she advanced three grounds for Colker’s public figure status. First, she argued that Colker is a voluntary, all-purpose public figure based on his extensive media presence, television appearances alongside Shaquille O’Neal on ABC, his role as a former FOX medical correspondent, and his published works on health and wellness. Second, she argued that, even if not an all-purpose public figure, Colker is at least a limited purpose public figure on medical and health-related issues. Third, she argued that Colker is an involuntary public figure, drawn into the spotlight through Grant’s allegations in the WWE litigation, which have received significant media attention.

The motion to dismiss also contended that the complaint failed to plead actual malice, a required element for defamation claims brought by public figures, as its only basis for actual malice was an allegation that Attorney Callis had Grant’s medical records and therefore should have known that her statements about Colker were untrue. Callis argued that the medical records, which were filed under seal with the motion, did not disprove or address the statements she made.

The Court’s Order

In denying the motion to dismiss, Judge Russell rejected each of the asserted public figure theories. As to the all-purpose public figure argument, the Court took judicial notice of Colker’s published statements regarding his medical practice and alternative treatments but concluded that the record lacked the “clear evidence” of “general fame or notoriety in the community” required under Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974).

With respect to limited purpose public figure status, the Court applied the four-factor test set forth in Lerman v. Flynt Distributing Co., 745 F.2d 123 (2d Cir. 1984), the most relevant factor being that the plaintiff has “voluntarily injected himself into a public controversy related to the subject of the litigation.” Even assuming Colker had participated in a public controversy concerning “alternative wellness treatments,” the Court drew a critical distinction: the allegedly defamatory statements at issue “did not arise from the debate surrounding alternative medicine.” Instead, the statements concerned Colker’s treatment of a single patient and alleged breaches of patient trust. Because the statements did not implicate the public controversy in which Colker had arguably participated, his media presence on alternative wellness topics did not render him a public figure.

The Court was similarly unpersuaded by the involuntary public figure theory, observing that such cases “must be exceedingly rare” under Gertz and that the record did not establish that the WWE litigation had generated the level of media attention necessary to thrust Colker involuntarily into public figure status.

Takeaway

This decision underscores that public figure status remains a demanding standard, even in the era of pervasive media exposure and self-branding. It also reinforces that the limited purpose inquiry is tightly tethered to the specific subject matter of the challenged statements. The Court, however, left open the possibility that Defendants may renew their public figure arguments at summary judgment, noting that “discovery may uncover further evidence that would alter” the analysis.