575 F.Supp.3d 479
S.D.N.Y.2021Background
- Plaintiff Michael Lindell, founder of a faith-based addiction-recovery nonprofit, sued Mail Media, Inc. (DailyMail) and reporter Laura Collins for libel over a Jan. 21, 2021 tabloid article.
- The Article alleged Lindell had a secret nine-month romance with actress Jane Krakowski and "showered" her with flowers, champagne, and liquor; it also noted denials from both parties.
- Lindell alleges the romance never occurred, that he is a long-term recovering alcoholic who would not buy or "foist" alcohol on others, and that the Article damaged his reputation and his Recovery Network's affiliations with churches.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the challenged statements are not defamatory as a matter of law; Lindell filed an amended complaint which the Court treated as operative.
- The District Court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice, holding the challenged statements (romance and gift of alcohol) are not actionable defamatory statements or defamatory by implication under New York law; denied award of SLAPP attorneys' fees because defendants did not assert a separate claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims that Lindell secretly dated Krakowski are defamatory | Lindell: false allegations of a secret romantic relationship harmed his moral/religious reputation and credibility for his recovery nonprofit | Defs: consensual dating between adults is not defamatory; allegations are routine and non‑degrading | Court: Not defamatory as a matter of law — ordinary dating does not impute moral depravity or disgrace |
| Whether statements that Lindell sent champagne and liquor are defamatory | Lindell: linking him to alcohol contradicts his public sobriety and could imply hypocrisy, injuring his recovery-related work | Defs: Article did not state Lindell consumed alcohol; gifting alcohol is lawful, ordinary, and not disgraceful | Court: Not defamatory — buying alcohol for a partner is not the type of conduct that exposes a person to public hatred or shame |
| Whether Article is defamatory by implication (hypocrisy affecting nonprofit) | Lindell: in context of his Recovery Network, implication that he is hypocritical about sobriety could cause special damages or be defamatory per se | Defs: Article did not mention the nonprofit or his role; implication requires stronger showing of intended inference | Court: Fails — no language in Article suggests hypocrisy, plaintiff did not show the article’s audience would know his nonprofit or that defendants intended the inference |
| Whether defendants may recover SLAPP attorneys' fees under N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §70-a | Defs: request fees as prevailing on motion to dismiss under New York's amended SLAPP statute | Plf: not applicable here | Court: Denies fees — defendants did not assert a separate claim or counterclaim under the statute, so fee relief not available on this motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard and plausibility framework)
- Van Buskirk v. The New York Times Co., 325 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2003) (definition and contextual inquiry for defamatory meaning)
- Levin v. McPhee, 119 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 1997) (statement must be reasonably susceptible to the alleged defamatory meaning)
- Palin v. New York Times Co., 940 F.3d 804 (2d Cir. 2019) (elements of defamation under New York law)
- Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enters., 209 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2000) (whether words are defamatory is a legal question for the court)
- Rejent v. Liberation Pubs., Inc., 611 N.Y.S.2d 866 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994) (serious sexual misconduct/immorality required for defamation per se in analogous context)
- Stepanov v. Dow Jones & Co., 987 N.Y.S.2d 37 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014) (defamation-by-implication requires showing the article can reasonably be read to impart the inference and that the author intended or endorsed it)