Bobulinski v. Tarlov, 25-17

Plaintiffs Anthony Bobulinski (a former business partner of Hunter Biden) and his attorney Stefan Passantino sued Fox News commentator Jessica Tarlov for defamation and injurious falsehood.
Tarlov had stated on air that Bobulinski's legal fees were paid by a Trump Super PAC, which plaintiffs allege was false and damaging.
After being contacted by plaintiffs, Tarlov issued an on-air clarification, stating that there was no indication Bobulinski’s fees were paid by a Trump PAC and that Bobulinski denies it.
Plaintiffs claimed that the statements, including the clarification, were defamatory (directly and by implication) and sought $30 million in damages.
Tarlov moved to dismiss the claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and for attorney’s fees under New York’s anti-SLAPP law.
The court granted Tarlov’s motion to dismiss and awarded attorney's fees, finding the anti-SLAPP law applicable in federal court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tarlov’s statements were defamatory	Statements/implications connect Bobulinski and Passantino to Trump PAC, harming reputation	Statements not reasonably defamatory; normal for third-party payment; context matters	Not defamatory (directly or by implication) as a matter of law
Actual malice standard and fault	Tarlov acted with knowledge/reckless disregard of falsity as a political operative	No facts alleged showing Tarlov knew or recklessly disregarded falsity	Plaintiffs did not plead actual malice
Special damages/defamation per se	$30M damages for professional harm, reputation, etc.; defamation per se applies	Alleged injury speculative; no per se category applies	Plaintiffs fail to allege special damages or defamation per se
Applicability of NY anti-SLAPP fee-shifting in federal court	NY’s fee-shifting is procedural, conflicting with Fed. Rules, so doesn't apply	Fee-shifting is substantive—should apply in diversity federal actions	Fee-shifting is substantive; Tarlov awarded attorney’s fees

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. Supreme Court) (sets plausibility standard for motions to dismiss)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. Supreme Court) (explains plausibility for stating a valid claim)
Davis v. Boeheim, 24 N.Y.3d 262 (N.Y. Court of Appeals) (defines defamation under New York law)
Celle v. Filipino Rep. Enterprises Inc., 209 F.3d 163 (2d Cir.) (courts decide if statements are reasonably susceptible to a defamatory meaning)
N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. Supreme Court) (actual malice standard for public figures)
Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429 (N.Y. Court of Appeals) (defines when special damages/defamation per se applies)
Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. Supreme Court) (discussion of public figure status and remedies)
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co., 559 U.S. 393 (U.S. Supreme Court) (discusses federal v. state law in Erie analysis)
Riordan v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 977 F.2d 47 (2d Cir.) (state law fee-shifting provisions as substantive in diversity jurisdiction)