Joseph Ames v. American Radio Relay League In
17-1091
| 3rd Cir. | Nov 13, 2017Background
- Joseph Ames served as NTS Eastern Area Chairman and Eastern Pennsylvania Section Manager for ARRL and communicated with FEMA about NTS support and exercises.
- In July 2015 Ames sent a letter to FEMA proposing direct cooperation, a tabletop exercise, and a memorandum of agreement between NTS and FEMA.
- In August 2015 ARRL CEO Sumner notified Ames that ARRL policy required FEMA communications about NTS to be routed through ARRL’s designated contact (Mike Corey) unless specifically authorized.
- Despite the August directive, Ames communicated with FEMA in October 2015 (regarding hurricane assistance) and February 2016 (accepting participation in the Cascadia Rising exercise), copying ARRL leaders after sending the messages.
- ARRL removed Ames from his appointments and published an online article stating Ames had unilaterally communicated with FEMA and made commitments on behalf of ARRL without authority; Ames sued for defamation.
- The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding the statements were true on the face of the complaint; the Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article’s statement that Ames "communicated with FEMA on behalf of NTS" is actionable | Ames argued the statement was defamatory and false | ARRL argued the complaint and documents show Ames did communicate with FEMA on behalf of NTS | Held: True on the face of the complaint; not actionable |
| Whether communications were "unilateral" / unauthorized | Ames argued he looped in ARRL leadership and their non-objection shows authorization | ARRL argued lack of prior approval under August directive means communications were unilateral | Held: Ames did not allege prior authorization; statements true |
| Whether Ames "made commitments on behalf of ARRL without authority" | Ames said he merely informed FEMA of NTS capabilities and made no commitments | ARRL pointed to July letter, October call, and February email that included specific commitments and tasking | Held: Documents show concrete commitments; statement true |
| Whether Ames "repeatedly acted contrary to Sumner’s directive" | Ames contended post-hoc non-objection and unrelated certificate showed approval | ARRL relied on the August directive and subsequent communications showing contrary action | Held: He acted contrary at least twice after the directive; statement true |
Key Cases Cited
- Tucker v. Fischbein, 237 F.3d 275 (3d Cir. 2001) (truth is an affirmative defense in defamation actions)
- Budhun v. Reading Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 765 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 2014) (affirmative defenses apparent on the face of the complaint may be considered on a motion to dismiss)
- Buck v. Hampton Twp. Sch. Dist., 452 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 2006) (court may consider documents integral to the complaint when ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim to relief)