Goldfarb v. Channel One Russia, 442 F.Supp.3d 649

Background

In 2006 Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned and died in London; a UK inquiry later found he was killed by agents acting on behalf of the Russian state and exonerated plaintiff Alex Goldfarb.
Goldfarb, a microbiologist and co‑author of a book blaming Russian agents, was accused on Russian TV (Channel One and RT America) in 2018 of murdering Litvinenko, murdering his wife, and being a CIA agent.
Channel One recorded a rebuttal interview of Goldfarb in its New York studio (March 23, 2018) but later broadcast programs repeating the accusations without airing Goldfarb’s taped rebuttal; RT America aired similar allegations.
Goldfarb sued Channel One and RT America in S.D.N.Y. for libel per se and intentional infliction of emotional distress; defendants moved to dismiss for forum non conveniens and lack of personal jurisdiction (and RT America also moved for failure to state a claim).
The court found Russia an inadequate alternative forum (crediting Goldfarb’s safety fears), declined to dismiss on FNC grounds, and held Channel One subject to New York specific personal jurisdiction based on its New York studio, correspondent, distribution in NY, and the taped NYC interview.
The court denied RT America’s personal jurisdiction motion without prejudice, granted limited jurisdictional discovery as to RT America, and stayed RT America’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion pending resolution of jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Forum non conveniens — should suit be dismissed in favor of Russia?	Goldfarb: Russia is inadequate and unsafe; he has strong U.S. connections (residence, reputational harm in U.S.).	Defendants: Russia is an adequate forum; U.S. suit is forum‑shopping.	Denied — Russia is inadequate (risk to plaintiff) and defendants failed to show public/private factors strongly favor dismissal.
Adequacy of Russia as alternative forum	Goldfarb: well‑founded fear of persecution/imprisonment; unsafe to litigate there.	Defendants: amenable to service; Russian courts can hear claims.	Denied — court credits safety concerns and expert evidence; Russia not adequate.
Personal jurisdiction over Channel One	Goldfarb: Channel One transacts business in NY (studio, NY correspondent, distribution), and the NYC interview was part of creating the allegedly defamatory broadcasts.	Channel One: mere distribution of broadcasts into NY insufficient; interview didn’t air so no NY connection to defamatory content.	Denied — specific jurisdiction exists under CPLR §302(a)(1): Channel One did “something more” (NY interview, studio, distribution) and claim arises from that conduct; due process satisfied.
Personal jurisdiction over RT America	Goldfarb: RT has NY distribution contracts and maintains a NY studio/correspondent (alleged).	RT: insufficient NY contacts tying creation of defamatory content to NY.	Denied without prejudice — plaintiff permitted jurisdictional discovery to develop facts; 12(b)(6) motion stayed pending jurisdictional discovery.

Key Cases Cited

Carey v. Bayerische Hypo–Und Vereinsbank AG, 370 F.3d 234 (2d Cir. 2004) (forum non conveniens is discretionary and plaintiff’s forum choice merits deference)
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1981) (standards for forum non conveniens and adequacy of alternative forums)
Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Indus., Inc., 416 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2005) (three‑part FNC test and analysis)
Iragorri v. United Techs. Corp., 274 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2001) (sliding scale deference to plaintiff’s forum choice)
Pollux Holding Ltd. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 329 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2003) (alternative forum adequacy principles)
In re Arbitration Between Monegasque De Reassurances S.A.M. v. Nak Naftogaz of Ukr., 311 F.3d 488 (2d Cir. 2002) (forum adequacy and substantial justice analysis)
Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2009) (defendant bears burden to show an adequate alternative forum and that balance strongly favors dismissal)
Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007) (in defamation cases distribution alone is insufficient; need “something more” tied to forum)
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts due process standard)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (U.S. 2014) (general jurisdiction limits)
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (U.S. 2014) (contacts must be defendant’s own, not solely plaintiff‑linked)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment and foreseeability of suit)
World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (fair play and substantial justice analysis)
Grand River Enters. Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor, 425 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2005) (plaintiff’s burden on jurisdictional showing)
Calavo Growers of Cal. v. Generali Belg., 632 F.2d 963 (2d Cir. 1980) (practicality of transporting witnesses/documents vs. transferring suit)
R. Maganlal & Co. v. M.G. Chem. Co., 942 F.2d 164 (2d Cir. 1991) (FNC requires balance to tilt heavily toward alternative forum)