Ricci v. Teamsters Union Local 456
781 F.3d 25
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Peter Ricci, a long‑time Teamsters Local 456 member, opposed union leadership in 2002 and alleges a decade of retaliatory conduct culminating in leaving the union on December 6, 2012.
- In Aug–Sept 2012 the Union distributed newsletters allegedly containing defamatory statements about the Riccis; those newsletters were published on thewestchesternewsletter.com hosted by GoDaddy.
- The Riccis do not allege GoDaddy authored the newsletters; their claims against GoDaddy rest on hosting the site, refusing to remove the publications, and not investigating complaints.
- The Riccis sued in New York state court on July 8, 2013; the case was removed to federal court and both defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The district court dismissed all claims against GoDaddy and all federal claims against the Teamsters, declining supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.
- On appeal the Second Circuit affirmed: CDA § 230 bars the defamation claim against GoDaddy; NLRA’s six‑month limitations period bars the federal labor claims against the Union.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GoDaddy can be liable for third‑party online publications | Ricci: GoDaddy is liable for republishing defamatory newsletters and for refusing to remove them | GoDaddy: Immune as an interactive computer service under CDA § 230; not the content creator | Held: GoDaddy immune under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1); dismissal affirmed |
| Whether CDA § 230 allows dismissal at pleadings stage | Ricci: CDA is an affirmative defense, so dismissal improper at Rule 12(b)(6) | Defendants: § 230 preemption is evident on the face of the complaint | Held: § 230 can support dismissal where immunity is evident from complaint; dismissal appropriate |
| Whether federal courts have jurisdiction over the NLRA/fair representation claim | Ricci: brought implied DFR and related NLRA claims in federal court | Teamsters: (argued on appeal) NLRB has exclusive jurisdiction over labor disputes | Held: Federal courts have jurisdiction over implied duty of fair representation claims; NLRB exclusivity not applicable here |
| Whether NLRA claims are timely | Ricci: last alleged act was Dec 6, 2012; complaint filed July 8, 2013 (within six months, plaintiff contends) | Teamsters: NLRA § 160(b) imposes six‑month limitations; complaint was filed late | Held: Claims barred by § 160(b); complaint filed about one month after six‑month limitations period expired |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. City of New York, 775 F.3d 538 (2d Cir. 2015) (standard for de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) (policy rationale for broad § 230 immunity for intermediaries)
- Chi. Lawyers’ Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2008) (plaintiff can sue original speaker but usually not the intermediary)
- Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 753 F.3d 1354 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (§ 230 can be resolved on pleadings when immunity is evident)
- Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008) (web platforms qualify for § 230 protection)
- DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (1983) (six‑month statute of limitations for certain NLRA claims)
- Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild, 525 U.S. 33 (1998) (federal courts may hear DFR claims collateral to statutory labor claims)
- McKenna v. Wright, 386 F.3d 432 (2d Cir. 2004) (§ 230 immunity may justify dismissal at the pleading stage)