defamation pro-se
If one is suing for libel, would they just list &quot;libel&quot; in the &quot;claims for relief&quot; section in a complaint, or would the specify the type of libel?
<p>If one is suing for libel, do they just write &quot;libel&quot; in the &quot;claims for relief&quot; section of the complaint or do they specify libel per se or libel per quod? Furthermore, can one claim both libel per se and per quod?</p>
<p>In my case, the defamatory content contains both types.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If one is suing for libel, would they just list “libel” in the “claims for relief” section in a complaint, or would the specify the type of libel?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is unclear what you mean by &quot;<em>claims for relief</em>&quot;, but this might be one example of why using sample formats from so-called &quot;self-help centers&quot; is <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/67336/are-exhibits-presented-in-order-of-importance-or-the-order-theyrelisted/67340#67340">discouraged</a>.</p>
<p>Complaints typically use the term &quot;<em>Prayer for Relief</em>&quot; as title to the section that lists the remedies a plaintiff seeks as compensation for the harm or loss the plaintiff incurred.</p>
<p>The type of libel is specified elsewhere in the pleadings.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>can one claim both libel per se and per quod?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes. One same defamatory falsehood can be egregious enough to constitute libel per se <em>and</em> also to have caused provable harm.</p>
<p>In the case of multiple falsehoods, some might constitute libel per se and others libel per quod. Seeking relief for falsehoods which are libel per se does not preclude seeking relief for those which are libel per quod, and vice versa.</p>
