Intercon Solutions, Inc. v. Basel Action Network
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122436
| N.D. Ill. | 2013Background
- Intercon Solutions, a California e-recycler operating in Illinois, sued Basel Action Network (BAN) and its director James Puckett for defamation and false light based on public statements that Intercon shipped hazardous e‑waste to China/Hong Kong after BAN denied Intercon e‑Stewards certification.
- BAN produced a letter and an Evidentiary Report and sent/posted these to government agencies, selected media, industry actors, and BAN’s website; Intercon alleges the materials were false and that BAN abused confidential audit access.
- BAN counterclaimed seeking a declaratory judgment that Intercon exported waste contrary to its representations and that BAN’s certification denial was justified.
- Defendants invoked Washington’s anti‑SLAPP Act (RCW 4.24.510 and 4.24.525), Noerr‑Pennington, and raised affirmative defenses including lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, unclean hands, and substantial truth.
- Court applied Illinois choice‑of‑law for Intercon’s substantive tort claims but Washington law for Defendants’ anti‑SLAPP defenses (defendants are Washington citizens and the speech originated there).
- Rulings: Section 510 (absolute immunity) bars claims based on communications to Illinois EPA and U.S. EPA but not to media/private parties or website postings; Section 525 (special motion to strike) is inapplicable in federal diversity court because it conflicts with the Federal Rules (12/56); Rule 12(c) judgment denied as to defamation/false light; Intercon’s motions to strike BAN’s jurisdiction/venue defenses granted; motion to strike unclean hands denied; BAN’s declaratory counterclaim dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law for anti‑SLAPP defenses | Apply Illinois law to all issues | Apply Washington anti‑SLAPP law to defenses because defendants and speech originate in WA | Court: Depecage allowed; apply Washington anti‑SLAPP to defendants’ immunity defenses |
| RCW 4.24.510 (absolute immunity for communications to government) | BAN’s public dissemination is tortious; cannot shield non‑government communications | Statements to EPA and IEPA are absolutely immune under §510 | Court: §510 bars claims based on communications to IL EPA and U.S. EPA; does not bar claims based on communications to media, private entities, or public website postings |
| RCW 4.24.525 (special motion to strike / conditional immunity) | Motion is timely and should be applied to strike Intercon’s claims | Section 525 conflicts with FRCP 12/56 and cannot be applied in federal diversity court | Court: Section 525 inapplicable in federal diversity actions because it mandates preliminary merits adjudication using materials outside the pleadings and a heightened "clear and convincing" standard, conflicting with Rules 12(d)/56; special motion to strike denied on that basis |
| Rule 12(c) motion re: defamation & false light | Statements are non‑actionable opinion or protected; no actual malice pleaded | BAN published verifiable factual allegations, acted with malice; complaint adequately pleads falsity and malice | Court: 12(c) denied; Intercon plausibly alleged falsity and actual malice and statements were not mere nonactionable opinion |
| Personal jurisdiction & venue (affirmative defenses) | N/A (Intercon alleges injury in Illinois) | Puckett resident of WA; statements made in WA; fiduciary shield prevents jurisdiction/venue in IL | Court: Defenses insufficiently pleaded; fiduciary shield inapplicable given Puckett’s alleged role and deliberate targeting of Illinois; strike these defenses granted |
| Declaratory counterclaim by BAN | N/A | Counterclaim seeks declaration that Intercon exported waste and BAN’s denial was justified | Court: Dismiss counterclaim—issues duplicate defenses and will be resolved in main action; counterclaim fails to state independent claim |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (public‑figure defamation requires proof of actual malice)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (intentional torts aimed at a forum can support specific jurisdiction)
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (U.S. 2010) (federal rules preempt conflicting state procedural rules; analyze whether a Federal Rule answers the question)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (apply plausibility standard; accept well‑pleaded facts)
- Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Woods, 480 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1987) (state procedural mandates can conflict with federal rules governing courts)
- Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2010) (specific jurisdiction in defamation where defendants aimed tortious conduct at plaintiff in forum)
- Sandholm v. Kuecker, 962 N.E.2d 418 (Ill. 2012) (discussion of SLAPP phenomena and state anti‑SLAPP regimes)
- Godin v. Schencks, 629 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2010) (First Circuit view allowing application of state anti‑SLAPP procedure in federal court)
- Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. v. Hughes, 190 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 1999) (Ninth Circuit discussion of anti‑SLAPP and federal rules)
- Metabolife Int’l, Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) (anti‑SLAPP discovery provisions conflict with Rule 56)