Aslan Soobzokov v. ErIc Lichtblau
664 F. App'x 163
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2014 Houghton Mifflin published Eric Lichtblau’s The Nazis Next Door, which asserts the U.S. recruited alleged Nazis after WWII; Lichtblau included discussion of Aslan Soobzokov and his father Tscherim (accused of Nazi war crimes).
- Lichtblau spent nearly a week with Soobzokov and used interviews and documents from him; the book portrays Soobzokov as a devoted son who insists on his father’s innocence.
- Soobzokov sued Lichtblau and Houghton Mifflin for defamation, invasion of privacy (false light), and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim; Soobzokov appealed.
- The Third Circuit reviewed de novo and examined whether the passages about Soobzokov (and linking him to his father) were defamatory, and whether the speech implicated public concern/required actual malice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether specific descriptions of Soobzokov are defamatory under NJ law | Lichtblau’s portrayals make Soobzokov appear obsessive, unstable, and subject him to ridicule | Passages simply describe documented behavior and cooperation; not injurious falsehoods | Not defamatory — ordinary reader would view passages as nonactionable descriptions of conduct and belief |
| Whether linking Soobzokov to his father (an alleged Nazi) states a claim for defamation by association | Being called the son of a Nazi injures reputation and implies sympathy for Nazism | New Jersey law requires more than mere familial association; no allegation Soobzokov participated in Nazi activity | No claim — NJ would not recognize defamation by mere relation absent implication of personal misconduct |
| Whether the book addresses a matter of public concern (triggering actual-malice standard) | Soobzokov contends individual story is private and thus not subject to public concern protection | Book addresses government conduct, postwar policies, and geopolitics — matters of public concern | Book addresses public concern; plaintiff failed to plead actual malice, so constitutional bar applies |
| Whether false-light and intentional-infliction claims survive if defamation fails or speech is public concern | These torts arise from the same allegedly actionable speech about Soobzokov | Constitutional protections and defamation standards apply equally; if not defamatory or protected, these torts fail | Dismissed — false-light and IIED claims require the same showing and thus fail here |
Key Cases Cited
- Romaine v. Kallinger, 537 A.2d 284 (N.J. 1988) (rejects defamation-by-association absent suggestion of plaintiff’s own misconduct)
- Decker v. Princeton Packet, Inc., 561 A.2d 1122 (N.J. 1989) (context and ordinary-reader interpretation govern defamatory meaning)
- Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011) (speech on matters of public concern receives heightened First Amendment protection)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for surviving a motion to dismiss)
- Bufalino v. Associated Press, 692 F.2d 266 (2d Cir. 1982) (mere family relation to a criminal is generally not defamatory)
- Durando v. Nutley Sun, 37 A.3d 449 (N.J. 2012) (false-light and defamation claims involving public concern require actual malice)