758 F.Supp.3d 166
S.D.N.Y.2024Background
- Plaintiffs Anthony Bobulinski (Hunter Biden's former business partner) and his attorney Stefan Passantino sued Fox News commentator Jessica Tarlov for defamation and injurious falsehood.
- The lawsuit focused on Tarlov’s on-air statements claiming Bobulinski’s legal fees were paid by a Trump-affiliated PAC, later partially retracted/corrected by Tarlov.
- The statements related to Bobulinski’s testimony before the House Oversight Committee regarding the Biden family's business activities.
- Plaintiffs claimed Tarlov’s statements harmed their reputations and alleged Tarlov acted with actual malice, seeking $30 million in damages.
- Tarlov moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), argued the claims failed on the law, and sought attorney’s fees under New York’s anti-SLAPP law.
- The court granted Tarlov’s motion to dismiss and her request for attorney’s fees, finding the anti-SLAPP law’s fee-shifting provisions substantive and applicable in federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements were defamatory | Statements lead to distrust and disgrace by linking to Trump PAC | Statements not defamatory; did not subject plaintiffs to contempt | Not defamatory as a matter of law; no slander or implication |
| Actual malice requirement | Tarlov acted with malice, knew or recklessly disregarded falsity | No facts showing knowledge or reckless disregard of falsity | No actual malice pleaded; conclusory assertions insufficient |
| Defamation per se/special damages | No need for specifics due to defamation per se | Statements do not fit defamation per se; damages not sufficiently pled | No defamation per se; insufficient special damages alleged |
| Applicability of anti-SLAPP attorney’s fees | Anti-SLAPP fee-shifting does not apply in federal court or on motion to dismiss | Anti-SLAPP fee-shifting is substantive, applies here | NY anti-SLAPP attorney’s fees provision is substantive and applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (clarifies pleading standards for plausibility)
- N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (actual malice standard for defamation)
- Davis v. Boeheim, 24 N.Y.3d 262 (definition of defamatory statements under NY law)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (limited-purpose public figure doctrine)
- Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enterprises Inc., 209 F.3d 163 (test for whether statements are defamatory)