Kalil v. Kalil.
Dismissed with prejudice.

U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz granted Haley Kalil’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint “WITH PREJUDICE AND ON THE MERITS.” The ruling disposed of both the publication-of-private-facts claim and the unjust-enrichment claim.

Matthew Bialick and Karl Johnson of MJB Law represented Haley. Matthew’s work included the defense motion to dismiss and oral argument. The court’s order identifies both MJB lawyers as counsel for the defense.

The court examined Haley’s remarks in the context of an interview about her own life, marriage, health and divorce. It held that the remarks concerned a matter of legitimate public concern and therefore did not support liability for publication of private facts under Minnesota law.

As the court explained, “the law generally protects a person’s speech about herself, even though such speech inevitably reveals details about others.” (Order, p. 12.)

The court also dismissed the unjust-enrichment claim, explaining that there was nothing unjust about retaining a benefit from remarks concerning a matter of legitimate public concern. (Order, p. 13 n. 4.)

The case addresses privacy rights, social media and the treatment of public figures in Minnesota. Its significance lies in the court’s attention to the whole conversation: who was speaking, what part of her own life she was describing, and the context in which the challenged remarks arose.

For content creators, authors, public figures and others whose personal accounts become the subject of litigation, the decision illustrates why the full publication and the precise elements of the claim matter. It does not hold that public curiosity makes every private detail fair game.

The court resolved the case under Minnesota privacy law’s legitimate-public-concern standard. Because it found that Haley’s remarks were not tortious, it expressly did not reach her separate First Amendment argument. The result is a dismissal of the claims against Haley; the order does not announce a blanket constitutional immunity for statements about another person. (Order, p. 13.)

Matthew Kalil v. Haley Kalil · U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota · No. 0:26-cv-00062-PJS-DTS · ECF No. 30 · September 17, 2026.

Download the dismissal order (PDF, 14 pages). The order sets out the court’s reasoning and the dismissal of the complaint. This summary reports the September 17 ruling.

MJB Law handles selected disputes involving privacy claims, public statements, social media and First Amendment defenses. The firm’s speech and privacy work draws on its broader commercial litigation practice and close analysis of the original record.

First Amendment and privacy litigationMatthew BialickKarl Johnson