McNamee v. Clemens
762 F. Supp. 2d 584
E.D.N.Y2011Background
- Clemens allegedly engaged McNamee as a personal trainer during 1999–2001 while Clemens played for the New York Yankees, with ongoing relationship thereafter.
- McNamee later alleges Clemens launched a public defamation campaign and sued McNamee in Texas after Mitchell Report disclosures.
- McNamee provided evidence and testimony to federal investigators and the Mitchell Commission regarding Clemens' alleged steroid use.
- Clemens publicly denied the allegations through various media appearances and press statements, creating a heated public controversy.
- McNamee filed suit in New York federal court asserting defamation, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; Clemens moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- The district court granted in part and denied in part Clemens’s motion, addressing jurisdiction and multiple defamation/related claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Clemens | Clemens transacted New York business via contract with McNamee and ongoing relationship. | No substantial nexus; contacts are too attenuated or timing disconnected from the alleged injuries. | Jurisdiction proper under CPLR 302(a)(1); nexus substantial. |
| Whether McNamee's claims arise from Clemens' New York contacts | The training contract and ongoing relationship connect to alleged defamations. | Arises from conduct mostly outside New York; nexus insufficient. | Prima facie nexus shown; claims arise from New York activities. |
| Whether Clemens's defamation claims are sufficiently pled | Statements branding McNamee as a liar and accusing misconduct are actionable facts. | Some statements are nonactionable opinion or protected; truth is an affirmative defense. | Defamation claims survive in part; some statements deemed actionable at this stage. |
| Whether the judicial proceedings privilege bars claims | Privilege does not apply to out-of-proceeding press statements made to refute Mitchell Report. | Privilege should shield statements connected to proceedings. | Judicial privilege does not bar the challenged out-of-court statements; privilege not applicable here. |
| Whether IIED and malicious prosecution claims survive | Campaign of harassment and baseless litigation caused emotional distress and prosecutorial harm. | Counts duplicative of defamation; IIED requires extreme conduct; malicious prosection premature and damages not shown. | IIED is dismissed as duplicative and insufficently outrageous; malicious prosecution dismissed for premature status and lack of special damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fischbarg v. Doucet, 9 N.Y.3d 375 (N.Y. 2007) (contract-related jurisdiction can attach despite servicing others in New York)
- Talbot v. Johnson Newspaper Corp., 71 N.Y.2d 827 (N.Y. 1988) (limits on long-arm based on time gap between contacts and injury)
- McGowan v. Smith, 52 N.Y.2d 268 (N.Y. 1981) (requires nexus between forum activity and cause of action)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (intentional acts causing injury in forum support personal jurisdiction)
- World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc. v. Bozell, 142 F. Supp. 2d 514 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (entertainment industry contacts can support jurisdiction in NY)