A federal judge last week dismissed a woman’s defamation lawsuit that sought $50 million in damages after a party guest allegedly called her a “prostitute” to others in attendance.

“No one likes being called names. But not every alleged insult gives rise to a lawsuit in federal court,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney in a May 20 order.

Tiffany Mai alleged that during a July 2024 dance at a luxury dude ranch in Granby, attendee Laura Elsaden approached other guests and “without provocation, began falsely and maliciously stating that Ms. Mai was a prostitute.”

Mai “has never engaged in prostitution, nor has she ever been associated with any such activities,” wrote attorney Tracy L. Ashmore.

Mai, an insurance agent and author, sought $50 million for the defamation, alleging the comments caused “immediate and significant harm to Ms. Mai’s standing within the ranch community and beyond.”

Separately, her husband, businessman and former Republican state treasurer candidate Brian Watson, filed a similar defamation lawsuit against Elsaden seeking $100 million. Watson alleged Elsaden called him a “criminal” who had “relations” with prostitutes at the same dance party.

Elsaden moved to dismiss Mai’s lawsuit, noting that defamation claims involving public figures must show the speaker acted out of “actual malice,” meaning they knew their statement was false or did not care whether it was true. Elsaden argued Mai’s allegations did not demonstrate she acted maliciously.

However, Mai maintained she was not a public figure, so the actual malice standard did not apply.

“Everyone, including purely private persons such as Ms. Mai, has a reputation that can be tarnished by defamatory statements,” wrote Mai’s attorneys. “Thus, while Ms. Mai considers herself well-known among the small number of members of the Ranch community, and the small number of people involved with her businesses and other ventures, Ms. Mai is not prominent — as that term is used in the context of defamation — among the general public.”

Elsaden responded by pointing to Mai’s own description of her “prominence in business and social circles” and the size of her damages request.

“Stated simply, a private figure cannot be ‘prominent’ and have a reputation susceptible to $50 million in damage through an alleged statement not ‘broadcast to the general public,'” wrote Elsaden’s lawyers.

Sweeney agreed with Elsaden. She believed the allegations showed Mai to be someone who has “assumed a role” of prominence. Therefore, Elsaden’s mindset was a factor in Mai’s defamation claim.

“Mai has alleged that she is so important as to be a public figure, yet failed to allege Ms. Elsaden made her allegedly defamatory statement with actual malice,” Sweeney concluded.

She dismissed the lawsuit, but permitted Mai to amend the complaint to allege actual malice. Ashmore, Mai’s attorney, said she intended to file an amended document.

“We have always maintained that Ms. Mai’s complaint represented nothing more than a baseless money grab. We, therefore, are grateful that the Court, after a close review of the factual claims and legal standards, rejected Ms. Mai’s attempt to convert an alleged offhand observation made at a social gathering into $50 million in personal gains,” said attorney T. Markus Funk, who represents Elsaden.

On the same day Sweeney issued her order, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak denied Elsaden’s motion to dismiss in the similar case brought by Watson, Mai’s husband. Varholak did so after a brief hearing and with no written order, but with a directive for Elsaden to file a summary judgment motion to end the case in her favor. A separate motion is currently pending before Varholak to consolidate the two defamation cases, which Mai opposes.

The case is Mai v. Elsaden.