918 F. Supp. 2d 221
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Plaintiffs claim tortious interference with contract and with prospective business relations, plus bad-faith reporting claims under NY Public Health Law § 230(l1)(b).
- Defendants allegedly waged a malicious campaign with false online statements about Dr. Lesesne and by filing complaints with the GMC and OPM.
- Plaintiffs allege the Brimecomes contacted Dr. Lesesne’s patients to deter them from dealing with him.
- Complaint dates: GMC complaint around May 2011; OPM complaint in early 2009; internet statements from late 2008 onward.
- Court reviews Rule 12(b)(6) standards and concludes most claims sound in defamation or are inadequately pleaded; statute-of-limitations concerns discussed; leave to amend denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the tortious interference claims survive as pleaded | Plaintiffs argue they state tortious interference, not defamation | Brimecomes contend claims are defamation or inadequately pleaded | Claims largely sound in defamation; dismissed |
| Whether tortious interference with contract is adequately pleaded | Lesesne asserts interference with contracts with patients/third parties | No identifiable contract or terms pleaded; vague allegations insufficient | Not adequately pleaded; dismissed |
| Whether tortious interference with prospective economic advantage is adequately pleaded | Plaintiffs contend identifiable prospective relationships. | Plaintiffs failed to identify potential customers; specificity required | Not adequately pleaded; dismissed |
| Whether NY Public Health Law § 230(ll)(b) implies a private right of action for bad-faith reporting | Section 230(11)(b) creates private damages action for bad-faith reporting | No implied private right of action exists; would undermine confidentiality and legislative purpose | GRANTED; no implied private right of action |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrison v. National Broadcasting Co., 19 N.Y.2d 453 (N.Y. 1967) (harm to professional reputation can underlie defamation claims)
- Noel v. Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co., 295 N.Y.S.2d 399 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dept. 1968) (defamation was at issue despite economic-harm allegations)
- Kartiganer Associates, P.C. v. Newburgh, 394 N.Y.S.2d 262-63 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1977) (defamation-like harm can constitute defamation rather than tortious interference)
- Horstein v. General Motors Corp., 391 F.Supp.1274 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) (negligence leading to reputational injury intertwined with conduct; relevance to misstatement theory)