Actava TV, Inc. v. Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide"
1:18-cv-06626
S.D.N.Y.Mar 15, 2023Background
- Channel defendants sued Actava in related S.D.N.Y. actions and entered a 2016 settlement with stipulated injunctions that dismissed claims against Actava except for enforcement of the injunctions.
- In Sept. 2016 Actava signed a Referral Agreement with Matvil to refer customers and operationalize set-top box distribution for Matvil’s IPTV service in several states.
- Defendants sent letters in Oct.–Nov. 2016 claiming Actava breached the stipulated injunctions by working with Matvil; Defendants then filed a motion for civil contempt in the Infomir action in Dec. 2016 alleging, among other things, unlawful radio advertisements and distribution via Matvil.
- Judge Moses adjudicated the contempt motion on the merits and denied it on Sept. 27, 2017; Actava alleges the contempt filing nevertheless caused Matvil to end the referral relationship and inflicted substantial business losses.
- Plaintiffs sued alleging malicious prosecution based on the contempt motion; Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) (limited to malicious prosecution), and also sought judicial notice of filings from the related cases.
- The Court took judicial notice of the existence and filing content of certain related-case documents (not their truth), and denied Defendants’ 12(c) motion, finding Plaintiffs adequately pleaded the elements of malicious prosecution at the pleadings stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial notice of related-case filings | Court may consider filings for background | Defendants sought notice to support truth of assertions in those filings | Court granted judicial notice only for the fact of filings and their existence, not for truth of asserted facts |
| Whether filing the contempt motion was an “initiation of an action” | Contempt motion in Infomir—filed after dismissal of claims as to Actava—constituted initiation for malicious prosecution | A motion in a pending action is not an independent action or proceeding for malicious prosecution purposes | Court held the contempt motion qualified as an initiated proceeding here because it was filed after defendants’ claims against Actava had been dismissed and was adjudicated on the merits |
| Sufficiency of allegations of malice and lack of probable cause | Plaintiffs alleged Defendants knew the contempt motion would fail and acted in bad faith | Defendants argued Plaintiffs failed to plead lack of probable cause and malice | Court applied the Rule 12(c)/12(b)(6) standard, construed allegations as true, and found Plaintiffs’ pleadings adequate; factual disputes cannot be resolved on 12(c) |
| Whether the contempt proceedings terminated in Plaintiffs’ favor | Plaintiffs point to Judge Moses’ denial on the merits as termination in their favor | Defendants argued the Infomir action remained pending and no final judgment dismissed the entire action | Court found the relevant contempt proceeding was adjudicated in Plaintiffs’ favor and that suffices for the termination element |
| Whether Plaintiffs pleaded the required "special injury" for a civil malicious prosecution claim | Plaintiffs alleged concrete, specific business losses (loss of referral revenue, layoffs, etc.) resulting from the contempt motion | Defendants denied causation and disputed the severity/ specificity of alleged harms | Court held Plaintiffs pleaded specific and verifiable lost-business injury sufficient to meet New York’s special-injury requirement (reputational loss alone would be insufficient) |
Key Cases Cited
- L-7 Designs, Inc. v. Old Navy, LLC, 647 F.3d 419 (2d Cir. 2011) (on materials a court may consider on a Rule 12(c) motion and scope of judicially noticed matters)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions need not be accepted as true on pleading-stage motions)
- O'Brien v. Alexander, 101 F.3d 1479 (2d Cir. 1996) (elements of malicious prosecution and that civil actions can ground the tort)
- Engel v. CBS, Inc., 93 N.Y.2d 195 (N.Y. 1999) (special-injury requirement for civil malicious prosecution requires substantial, identifiable interference beyond defending a suit)
- Actava TV, Inc. v. Joint Stock Co. "Channel One Russia Worldwide", 412 F. Supp. 3d 338 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (prior district-court ruling relevant to sufficiency of pleadings on malice and probable cause)
- Liberty Synergistics, Inc. v. Microflo Ltd., 50 F. Supp. 3d 267 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (lost business can constitute special injury if specific and verifiable)