500 F.Supp.3d 1349
N.D. Ga.2020Background
- Larry Noble published an opinion piece on CNN asserting: “The Trump campaign assessed the potential risks and benefits of again seeking Russia’s help in 2020 and has decided to leave that option on the table.”
- Plaintiff Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. sued CNN for libel, claiming the Statement was false and published with knowledge of its falsity.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the piece was protected opinion and, alternatively, that Plaintiff failed to plead actual malice (required because Plaintiff is a public figure).
- Applying Georgia choice-of-law rules (lex loci delicti), the court determined the place of injury was Plaintiff’s principal place of business (New York), so New York law governs the claim.
- Under New York law’s three-factor test for fact vs. opinion, the court concluded the Statement could be understood as an assertion of fact (hence potentially actionable).
- The court nonetheless found the complaint failed to plead actual malice with sufficient factual detail and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law: which state’s law applies | Triguero/Restatement approach—publication occurred in Atlanta (CNN) so Georgia law should apply | Apply Georgia’s lex loci delicti; place of injury governs | Lex loci delicti controls; plaintiff domiciled in NY (principal place of business) so New York law applies |
| Actionability: is the Statement fact or protected opinion | Statement alleged concrete campaign assessment and decision—therefore a factual assertion | Article is an opinion piece (Opinion section, disclaimers, rhetoric) and thus not actionable | Under NY three-factor test, Statement is capable of being read as a factual assertion and is therefore potentially actionable |
| Fault: did complaint plausibly plead actual malice | Prior writings and a tweet show author’s bias and thus actual malice; public sources showed falsity | Allegations are conclusory; prior writings are not tied to the specific factual claim nor do they show knowledge of falsity | Complaint fails to plead actual malice with particularized factual allegations; conclusory assertions insufficient |
| Relief/procedure: disposition of complaint | N/A—requested relief on merits | Dismissal for failure to state a claim | Complaint dismissed for failure to plead actual malice, but plaintiff granted leave to amend by deadline |
Key Cases Cited
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (actual malice standard for public figures)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (limitations on proving reckless disregard)
- Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (actual malice not shown by mere ill will)
- Dowis v. Mud Slingers, Inc., 621 S.E.2d 413 (Georgia rejects Restatement test; lex loci delicti governs in Georgia)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (corporate domicile: place of incorporation and principal place of business)
- Michel v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 816 F.3d 686 (Eleventh Circuit exposition of NY fact/opinion test)
- Palin v. New York Times Co., 940 F.3d 804 (New York law libel elements and actual malice application)
- Mann v. Abel, 885 N.E.2d 884 (context can signal opinion; placement and disclaimers weigh against fact characterization)
- Brian v. Richardson, 660 N.E.2d 1126 (only statements of fact can be actionable under NY law)
- Davis v. Boeheim, 22 N.E.3d 999 (fact/opinion analysis considers average reader and context)
- Levin v. McPhee, 119 F.3d 189 (context and qualifying language can negate factual implication)
- Risdon Enterprises v. Colemill Enterprises, 324 S.E.2d 738 (place of injury governs locus delicti in transitory torts)