417 F.Supp.3d 163
E.D.N.Y2019Background
- In April 2017 Goldman and Reddington, then Syracuse students, spent the night together; Reddington later reported a possible sexual assault and underwent a SANE exam and police/DA inquiry.
- The Onondaga County D.A. concluded there was "no credible proof of any sexual conduct," SANE testing found no male DNA, and the police closed the investigation.
- A Syracuse Title IX investigator later found Goldman violated the Student Code of Conduct and he was expelled; Reddington publicly celebrated the expulsion.
- Reddington posted texts and social-media messages (Facebook, LinkedIn) calling Goldman a "rapist" and a "monster," tagging NJIT and Bohler; Bohler subsequently terminated Goldman’s internship.
- Goldman sued under diversity jurisdiction for defamation (defamation per se for rape allegations) and tortious interference; Reddington moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court denied the motion as to most defamation claims and tortious-interference claims involving Syracuse and Bohler, but dismissed the tortious-interference claim as to NJIT without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Falsity of rape allegations | Goldman alleges accusations are "utterly unfounded," cites OCDA report, lack of male DNA, and initial lack of memory to plead falsity. | Reddington says the complaint fails to plead falsity and the DA decision doesn't conclusively prove no assault. | Court: Allegations and incorporated OCDA report plausibly plead falsity; dismissal on falsity grounds denied. |
| Opinion vs. fact ("monster" text) | Texts and posts convey an underlying factual assertion (that Goldman raped her) and thus can be actionable mixed opinion. | Defendant contends terms like "monster" are protected opinion/hyperbole. | Court: Statement may be read as mixed opinion implying undisclosed facts; survives dismissal. |
| "Of and concerning" identification (NJIT Facebook review) | Context (prior posts tagging NJIT and showing Goldman's photo) connects the review to Goldman. | Defendant argues review doesn’t name Goldman and lacks surrounding context. | Court: Reasonable jury could find the review referred to Goldman; claim survives. |
| Fault standard (gross irresponsibility / knowledge) | Goldman alleges Reddington knowingly made false statements; intentional lies meet or exceed grossly irresponsible standard. | Defendant contends plaintiff hasn't pleaded requisite culpability. | Court: Accepting allegations as true, plaintiff plausibly alleges knowing falsity; culpability requirement met at pleading stage. |
| Republication / message to Bohler | Goldman alleges Reddington posted or reposted Bohler exchange and celebrated his firing, which republished defamatory statement. | Reddington says she did not send the original message to Bohler. | Court: Republishing can create liability; pleadings allow inference she republished and celebrated; claim survives. |
| Tortious interference (NJIT, Syracuse, Bohler) – wrongful means and injury | Reddington’s false statements caused his expulsion and firing; defamation is the independent tort satisfying wrongful means. | Reddington argues no wrongful means and insufficient injury for some relationships (NJIT). | Court: Plausibly alleged interference with Syracuse and Bohler (wrongful means = defamation; injury alleged). Claim as to NJIT lacks concrete injury and is dismissed without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Tannerite Sports, LLC v. NBCUniversal News Grp., 864 F.3d 236 (plaintiff must plead falsity or not substantially true)
- Elias v. Rolling Stone LLC, 872 F.3d 97 (factors for opinion vs. fact; "of and concerning" standard)
- Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enters., Inc., 209 F.3d 163 (libel includes social-media/text publications)
- DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable LLC, 622 F.3d 104 (elements of tortious interference with prospective business relations)
- Enigma Software Grp. USA, LLC v. Bleeping Computer LLC, 194 F. Supp. 3d 263 (republisher liability and gross irresponsibility standard discussion)
- Gross v. New York Times Co., 82 N.Y.2d 146 (opinion vs. fact doctrine under New York law)