634 F.Supp.3d 114
S.D.N.Y.2022Background
- Plaintiff Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater and a prominent political actor, sued The Intercept (First Look) and reporters Matthew Cole and Alex Emmons over an April 13, 2020 article alleging Prince met with Wagner Group representatives and offered mercenary services.
- Prince denied the allegations before publication; the Article included his denial and relied in part on anonymous sources and documents.
- Prince filed suit in this District on Nov. 24, 2021; First Look and Cole moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and New York’s anti‑SLAPP statute; Emmons moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) and joined the 12(b)(6) motion.
- The Court held New York law governs (rejecting Wyoming), found Prince is a limited‑purpose public figure, and concluded the amended New York anti‑SLAPP statute applies (requiring proof of actual malice).
- The Court dismissed Emmons with prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction; dismissed First Look and Cole without prejudice for failure to plead actual malice plausibly, granted limited leave to amend, and denied defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees under § 70‑a in federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Emmons | Emmons previously conceded New York jurisdiction in related Wyoming briefing; thus he should be estopped | Emmons changed domicile/employer; prior statements not binding; no purposeful New York conduct tied to Article | Court: No judicial estoppel; no general or specific jurisdiction—dismissed Emmons for lack of personal jurisdiction (with prejudice) |
| Choice of law (NY v. WY) | Wyoming law should control | New York has greater interest because defendants and publication are NY‑based; national publication; NY media policy interests | Court: New York law governs the defamation claim |
| Public‑figure status / fault standard | Prince is not a public figure for this controversy | Prince has public profile and has voluntarily injected himself into debate over private military contractors | Court: Prince is a limited‑purpose public figure; heightened actual‑malice standard applies |
| Sufficiency of actual malice allegations (anti‑SLAPP) | Allegations of reliance on anonymous sources, failure to follow Intercept policies, political bias, and prior denial suffice to infer actual malice | Reporting relied on sources and documents; denials and asserted bias are insufficient to show knowledge or reckless disregard | Court: Allegations are conclusory and fail to plausibly allege actual malice; complaint dismissed as to First Look/Cole without prejudice; leave to amend granted limitedly |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (U.S. 2011) (paradigm forum for individual general jurisdiction is domicile)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (U.S. 2014) (limits on general jurisdiction over individuals and corporations)
- Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007) (internet defamation requires "something more" than publication into NY to establish CPLR 302(a)(1) jurisdiction)
- Biro v. Condé Nast, 807 F.3d 541 (2d Cir. 2015) (standards for pleading actual malice; anonymous sources and failure to investigate can support inference but require nonconclusory facts)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974) (public‑figure doctrine and distinctions in required fault)
- Harte‑Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (U.S. 1989) (actual malice requires high degree of awareness of probable falsity)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2001) (judicial estoppel factors)