Friedman v. Bloomberg L.P., 884 F.3d 83

Friedman filed suit in Connecticut alleging Palladyne and others induced him to join a sham hedge fund and later wrongfully terminated him; he sought nearly $499.4 million in damages.
Bloomberg published an article reporting on Friedman's lawsuit and quoting Palladyne calling Friedman an extortionist and saying he sued for "as much as $500 million."
Friedman sued Bloomberg (authors/editors), Palladyne (Netherlands), and Milltown (UK PR firm) for defamation.
The district court dismissed claims against the foreign Palladyne and Milltown defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-59b (which excepts defamation claims), and dismissed claims against Bloomberg on the merits: the "$500 million" line as privileged under N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 74; the "repeatedly tried to extort" line as nonactionable opinion/hyperbole.
On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction over the foreign defendants (holding the statute did not violate First or Fourteenth Amendment rights).
The Second Circuit affirmed that the "$500 million" report was a fair and true report of Friedman's complaint under N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 74, but reversed as to the "repeatedly tried to extort" quote, holding it could be reasonably read as alleging criminal conduct or implying undisclosed defamatory facts and thus survives dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-59b's defamation exclusion violates First Amendment right of access to courts	Statute prevents meaningful access to courts against out-of-state defendants	State may limit long-arm jurisdiction; no constitutional right to sue foreign defendants absent statute	Affirmed: no First Amendment violation; state need not exercise full due-process jurisdiction
Whether §52-59b's defamation exclusion violates Equal Protection	Exclusion irrationally discriminates against defamation plaintiffs	Statute is rationally related to legitimate interests (e.g., protect speech, avoid burdens on out-of-state publishers)	Affirmed: rational-basis review applies; statute rationally related to legitimate objectives
Whether report that Friedman sued "for as much as $500 million" is defamatory	Reporter should have clarified that damages couldn't be aggregated; omission is misleading	Statement fairly and substantially reported the complaint's prayer for relief; protected by N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 74	Affirmed: § 74 privilege applies; dismissal proper
Whether Palladyne's quote that Friedman "has repeatedly tried to extort money" is nonactionable opinion/hyperbole	Statement implies criminal extortion and undisclosed facts; actionable	Statement was rhetorical hyperbole/opinion about the suit merits and nonactionable	Reversed: statement is capable of defamatory meaning or implying undisclosed facts; survives Rule 12(b)(6) and goes to jury

International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (due-process minimum contacts principle for personal jurisdiction)
Whitaker v. Am. Telecasting, Inc., 261 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2001) (long-arm statute analysis and plaintiff's burden on personal jurisdiction)
Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 814 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 2016) (state not compelled to exercise jurisdiction over foreign defendants)
Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007) (recognizing rational basis for defamation exception to long-arm jurisdiction to protect speech)
Flamm v. Am. Ass'n of Univ. Women, 201 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2000) (standard for whether language reasonably implies defamatory meaning)