472 F.Supp.3d 900
D. Or.2020Background:
- Plaintiff John Dossett was NCAI’s longtime general counsel; Indianz.com, Indian Country Today (ICT), and High Country News published articles in 2018 reporting #MeToo-era allegations of unwanted touching and sexually‑charged comments by Dossett.
- Dossett was reassigned and then terminated by NCAI and suspended by Lewis & Clark Law School; he sued for defamation, intentional interference with economic relations (IIER), and negligence seeking about $6.1M.
- Defendants HCN, NCAI, Ho‑Chunk moved to dismiss and to strike under Oregon’s anti‑SLAPP statute and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Ho‑Chunk later argued tribal sovereign immunity.
- Court dismissed claims against Ho‑Chunk without prejudice based on sovereign immunity (plaintiff did not oppose that ground).
- Applying Oregon’s anti‑SLAPP step one, court held the articles were published in a public forum on a matter of public interest; under Planned Parenthood the court applied the Rule 12(b)(6) standard for the anti‑SLAPP step two in the absence of discovery.
- Court concluded the challenged statements were either substantially true or nonactionable opinion, granted anti‑SLAPP motions and struck defamation claims without prejudice; IIER dismissed as derivative/insufficient and negligence dismissed for lack of duty/economic‑loss rule; motion to amend denied as moot (leave to amend allowed by deadline).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Oregon anti‑SLAPP protection | Dossett: articles not a public‑interest matter | Defendants: online news about alleged workplace sexual misconduct is protected public‑interest speech | Held: articles were public‑forum statements on an issue of public interest; step one satisfied |
| Standard for anti‑SLAPP step two in federal court | Dossett: factual record needed; requested discovery | Defendants: court may resolve legal sufficiency under Rule 12(b)(6) per Ninth Circuit | Held: per Planned Parenthood, when attacking legal sufficiency court applies Rule 12(b)(6); no discovery required here |
| Defamation – falsity / opinion | Dossett: articles and attributions implied he committed sexual harassment and were false | Defendants: many statements were substantially true, quoted Dossett, or were non‑actionable opinion/hyperbole | Held: challenged statements were either not false (substantially true/accurate quotes) or constitutionally protected opinion; defamation claims dismissed without prejudice |
| IIER and negligence claims | Dossett: tort claims based on defendants’ allegedly false publications causing job loss and emotional harm | Defendants: IIER depends on defamation outcome; negligence barred by lack of duty/economic‑loss rule and no special relationship or physical injury | Held: IIER dismissed as derivative/insufficient; negligence dismissed for failure to plead duty/physical injury; both without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Neumann v. Liles, 358 Or. 706 (Or. 2016) (describing Oregon anti‑SLAPP framework and protected categories)
- Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress, 890 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 2018) (tiered approach: Rule 12(b)(6) for legal‑sufficiency challenges, Rule 56 when factual sufficiency is contested)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (opinions are protected unless they imply provable false facts)
- Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (U.S. 1986) (private‑figure plaintiff must prove falsity to recover for defamation)
- Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009) (application of Oregon anti‑SLAPP in federal court)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (facial plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard requiring plausibility)
- McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532 (Or. 1995) (elements of IIER and requirement of causation)