Court Tosses Devin Nunes' Silly SLAPP Lawsuit Against CNN

Defamation

from the finally dept

As you may recall, Rep. Devin Nunes has spent the last few years suing all sorts of critics and journalists, in a vexatious bout of abusing the courts to try to stifle criticism. Most famously, Nunes sued a satirical cow on Twitter (that case is still ongoing). But in December of 2019 he sued CNN. As we noted at the time — despite a weird column by a media critic at the Washington Post saying that this case was “halfway decent” — the case seemed like the dumbest Nunes’ suit we’d seen so far.

The filing was more performative nonsense, which seemed much more focused on spewing utter rubbish rather than making real defamation arguments. For example, a key part of the defamation claim involved statements on CNN about Nunes’ contacts with Lev Parnas, the former Rudy Giuliani henchman who was arrested as part of a plot to get information from Ukraine to embarrass Joe Biden. Nunes’ lawsuit argued that CNN defamed him… by getting the date wrong as to when Nunes and Parnas communicated. But… even if the date is wrong, that’s not defamation. The case, like most other Nunes’ cases, was filed in state court in Virginia, but thankfully, it was kicked up to federal court in NY. Bizarrely, Nunes went on TV claiming that CNN would be so scared to face him in court that the company likely wouldn’t show up, talking tough on Fox News about how he was going to have to “track them down” to “hold them accountable.” In fact, Nunes’ “bet” Sean Hannity that CNN would “run” from this lawsuit and “not show up in court.”

I don’t think Hannity “took” the bet, but he would have won. CNN went to court and has now won the case. Easily. Let’s just say Judge Laura Taylor Swain is not impressed by Nunes and whatever nonsense his lawyer, Steven Biss, presented to the court. Much of the opinion focuses on “choice of law” issues — i.e., which state’s defamation laws are at play here. There are four choices: Virginia, Washington DC, New York, or California. Nunes, basically wanted to apply any law except California’s. You might think that’s odd, because he (theoretically, at least) “lives” in California. He represents a district in California, and if any “damage” were actually done to his political chances, that damage would be done in California. But Nunes does not like the defamation laws of his own state — in part because California requires that before you sue someone for defamation you first ask them to retract what they’ve written.

The judge notes that Nunes made the choice to file this case in Virginia, and it appears that his lawyer, Steven Biss, is so bad at this that he didn’t even understand how Virginia’s choice of law principles work — because they make it pretty damn clear, that the proper state’s laws to use are… California’s.

Nunes makes two arguments against the application of California law, and in support of the application of either New York or Virginia law. In his supplemental briefing, Plaintiff argues that New York law should apply because CNN has a substantial presence there and Ward and Cuomo, who are generally located in New York, were present there when the statements were made. (See docket entry no. 43 at 5-6.) As a result, Plaintiff argues, the allegedly defamatory statements should be deemed to have been published exclusively in New York. As explained above, however, Virginia?s choice of law rules govern and, in Virginia and other lex loci jurisdictions, the place of publication is normally the location where statements are heard and understood. See Katz, 332 F. Supp. 2d at 915. In a multistate, mass media defamation case, it is impractical to determine that specific location; lex loci jurisdictions typically look in multistate circumstances to the place where the plaintiff suffers the most harm, which is usually held to be the state in which the plaintiff is domiciled, presumably based on an assumption that the information would be of most interest to third parties in that state and would be opened and read by a substantial number of persons there. Accordingly, the governing choice of law rule does not contemplate the application of New York state law based on the location of the reporters and the news organization.

In response to the argument that the laws that should be used are where the plaintiff suffered “the most harm” Nunes tried to argue that the real harm was in Virginia (?!?) or DC, not his “home” state of California. That’s kinda telling:

Plaintiff further argues that, if the Court were to look to the place where he suffered the greatest injury, the laws of either Virginia or the District of Columbia should apply because that is where he performs his role overseeing the activities of the Intelligence Community.

But the judge basically says “lol, no.”

Nunes does not proffer any additional facts that support his conclusory statement that he suffered substantial injury in either Virginia or District of Columbia, much less a greater injury there than in the home state that sends him to Congress as the representative of his district. His Amended Complaint alleges that he is a citizen of California and details his long family ties with, and extensive political service in and for, the state of California and its citizens.

Having considered persuasive authority and the legal and practical considerations underpinning Virginia?s application of the lex loci doctrine, the Court concludes that the Virginia Supreme Court would likely ?follow the lead of other lex loci jurisdictions and pinpoint the place of greatest harm in this multistate libel case in the district where the plaintiff was domiciled, absent strong countervailing circumstances.? Hatfill v. Foster, 415 F. Supp. 2d at 365. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts or ?strong countervailing circumstances? that militate against finding that Nunes was injured primarily in California, the state of his domicile, and where he stands for election. He has proffered no facts from which the Court could find that there are extraordinary circumstances indicating that he suffered greater harm, i.e., that the allegedly defamatory material garnered greater third-party attention in a single jurisdiction other than his home state. Accordingly, the Court finds that California law governs Plaintiff?s claims.

And, so, California defamation laws apply, and California’s laws require you to first ask for a retraction. Nunes tries to argue around that… but not very successfully.

Plaintiff advances four arguments against the application of the retraction statute to his defamation claims. First, he contends that the retraction statute does not apply to the article and television news program at issue because the statute on its face is limited to ?daily or weekly news publications [and] radio broadcasts.? (Opp. at 6.) This argument is contrary to the plain language of the retraction statute, which specifically defines ??[d]aily or weekly news publication? [to] mean[] a publication, either in print or electronic form, that contains news on matters of public concern and that publishes at least once a week.?…. Given that CNN publishes multiple times a day and published the article in question in electronic form, this argument against the statute?s application is without merit.

Next, Plaintiff argues that the retraction statute does not apply to claims of defamation per se…. In support of his argument against the application of the statute to Plaintiff?s claims, Plaintiff cites inapposite cases that do not involve the retraction statute. See Todd v. Lovecruft, No. 19-CV-01751-DMR, 2020 WL 60199, at *20 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2020) (holding, in case involving application of anti-SLAPP statute to allegations of sexual misconduct, that common law elements of defamation cause of action did not require plaintiff to plead special damages for claim of defamation per se); Clark v. Hidden Valley Lake Ass?n, No. 16-CV-02009-SI, 2018 WL 3069285 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2018) (upholding damages verdict despite lack of proof of actual damages, where plaintiff had prevailed on claims of defamation per se). Neither of these cases involved news media publication of the allegedly defamatory material, nor did any of the authority Plaintiff cited in this connection construe the retraction statute.

The retraction statute expressly applies to ?any action for damages for the publication of a libel in a daily or weekly news publication,? providing that ?plaintiff shall only recover special damages unless a correction is demanded and is not published or broadcast,? and does not distinguish or exempt claims of defamation per se….

[….]

Finally, Plaintiff argues that the retraction statute is inapplicable because it violates Virginia?s public policy by ?impos[ing] an added statutory requirement in defamation cases that has never been adopted by the Virginia General Assembly.? (Opp. at 8.) Plaintiff offers nothing more to support this assertion, and does not even specify the public policy that he believes would be violated by the application of California law. A mere difference between the respective defamation laws of Virginia and California ?does not, ipso facto, justify refusal to adhere to comity principles.?

And thus, the court finds that Nunes failed to follow California defamation law and first demand a retraction. That means he can only plead special damages. “Special damages” are, basically “actual” damages — a direct monetary loss that the plaintiff can attribute to the defendant’s actions. And, guess what? Steven Biss’s lawsuits didn’t quite have that (because there were no actual damages):

Plaintiff?s AC fails to meet the minimum pleading requirements for special damages established by Rule 9(g). Plaintiff?s original Complaint, filed on December 3, 2019, made no mention of special damages at all…. CNN moved to dismiss the Complaint on substantially the same grounds as those presented in this Motion, thus alerting Plaintiff to CNN?s arguments and to a potentially critical deficiency in the Complaint. (See docket entry no. 15.) Thereafter, Plaintiff amended his Complaint to claim he has ?suffered presumed damages and actual damages, including, but not limited to, insult, pain, embarrassment, humiliation, mental suffering, injury to his reputation, special damages, costs, and other out-of-pocket expenses, in the sum of $435,000,000, or such greater amount as is determined by the Jury.?

While the AC uses the phrase ?special damages,? refers to ?out of pocket expenses,? and includes a dollar amount that encompasses the entire array of damages claims, it provides no further indication of the basis or quantum of any special, or economic, element of his damages claim. A general ?monetary demand stated in round numbers is generally not considered to reflect the specific damages required of special damages.? Marino v. Jonke, No. 11 CV 430 VB, 2012 WL 1871623, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2012). Nor do such general allegations explain what the damages comprise or how they are calculated, denying both Defendant and the Court information as to the substance of the complaint. See Barrett v. U.S. Banknote Corp., No. 91 CIV. 7420 (RPP), 1992 WL 232055, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 1992) (holding that special damages allegation that proffered neither a specific damages figure nor a method of computing the damages was insufficient). In short, ?[d]amage claims of this generality do not constitute adequate pleading of special damages[,]? id., and ?without an allegation of special damages, the [AC] does not allege a legally sufficient cause of action [for defamation] under California law.? King v. Am. Broad. Companies, Inc., No. 97 CIV. 4963 (TPG), 1998 WL 665141, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 1998) (dismissing Plaintiff?s defamation claims where he failed to both comply with the California retraction statute and allege special damages in the complaint).

Oops.

And, then, of course, there was the utter nonsense of the “conspiracy” claim. Nunes’ complaint basically tried to argue that CNN was out to get him, and that’s not how any of this works.

Finally, the Defendant argues that Plaintiff?s conspiracy claims must also be dismissed because the AC fails to plead facts sufficient to allege plausibly that CNN engaged in a conspiracy to defame and injure Nunes. Under California law, conspiracy ?[s]tanding alone [ ] does no harm and engenders no tort liability.? Applied Equip. Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., 869 P.2d 454, 457 (Cal. 1994). A conspiracy ?must be activated by the commission of an actual tort,? and a ?bare agreement among two or more persons to harm a third person cannot injure the latter unless and until acts are actually performed pursuant to the agreement.? Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Specifically, in defamation cases, ?plaintiffs have not been allowed to circumvent the statutory limitation[s],? such as those imposed by the retraction statute, by ?proceeding on a theory other than defamation.? Fellows v. Nat?l Enquirer, Inc., 721 P.2d 97, 101 (Cal. 1986). In light of Plaintiff?s failure to plead a viable defamation claim, there is no underlying tort to support a viable claim for conspiracy here.

I’m not entirely sure why CNN didn’t also move to make use of California’s anti-SLAPP law, since they were able to get California’s defamation law applied to the case — because that might have put Nunes in the position of having to pay for CNN’s legal fees. But, either way, it’s another big (but totally expected) loss for Nunes in his SLAPP crusade.

And… we still don’t know who’s paying for all of these lawsuits.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, anti-slapp, california, defamation, devin nunes, free speech, new york, slapp, steven biss, virginia
Companies: cnn