Ocoee Rafting’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Spencer Hayes has been referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee in an order handed down by Chief Judge Curtis L. Collier.

Hayes had filed suit in U.S. District Court August 2011 after suffering a broken leg a year earlier. He said the guide asked the customers if they wanted to go spinning through one of the rapids and he and a friend said no. The lawsuit claims the guide ignored their wishes, Hayes fell out and was pulled into the rapid, then smashed into the rocks and suffered a leg broken in five places and bleeding. The outfitter denied any negligence, said Hayes did not follow safety instructions, and noted that Hayes had signed a waiver before the trip.

In its Motion to Dismiss, Ocoee Rafting states that Hayes is trying to use the litigation and a threatened interview on network television in order to increase the amount he would receive in settlement. It points out that the May demand for settlement was twice the amount of the March demand. It goes on to say Hayes’ attorney said if the May demand was met, her client would forego an interview with Dateline because, she presumed, the rafting company would insist on a confidentiality agreement as a condition of settlement.

“The Court is left with one, inescapable conclusion: that the plaintiff is attempting to take money by threatening to interview with a network television program which would disparage the defendant’s business reputation,” the motion says. The motion points out “the Court has inherent power to sanction a party – by dismissal – for abusing the judicial process.”

Hayes took exception to Ocoee Rafting’s embodiment of the facts and its opinions, saying “It is simply not the case that this Plaintiff has attempted to extort the Defendant.” It states the rafting company’s representation to the Court is based on inaccurate assumptions. Hayes insists he did not offer silence as a term and condition of settlement, did not seek to coerce any benefit, made no threats. It notes the March demand and May demand were both appropriate reflections of Hayes’ opinion of the fair settlement amount he was willing to accept. It said the March demand was discounted in hopes to settle the case quickly. When that was rejected and a smaller counter-offer was made, he increased the May demand to what he felt was fair and reasonable. The response said there is no evidence that Hayes engaged in any conduct that merits sanctions, that he did not pursue any improper action, and that the court does not have authority to dismiss in this case. Hayes asked the court to deny the motion to dismiss.

The magistrate judge is to conduct evidentiary hearings and enter such dispositions as she deems appropriate.