Steele v. Goodman
382 F. Supp. 3d 403
E.D. Va.2019Background
- Plaintiffs Robert D. Steele and Earth Intelligence Network (EIN) allege defendants Jason Goodman (Crowdsource The Truth), Patricia Negron, and Susan Lutzke (aka "Queen Tut") published a series of videos, tweets, and emails from June 2017 onward accusing Plaintiffs of fraud, charity scam, and other misconduct, causing donor refunds and reputational injury.
- Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting nine counts against each defendant: defamation per se; insulting words (Va. Code § 8.01-45); statutory conspiracy (Va. Code §§ 18.2-499, -500); common-law conspiracy; tortious interference; intentional infliction of emotional distress; computer-related claims (Va. Code § 18.2-152.7 et seq.); unauthorized use of name/picture (Va. Code § 8.01-40); and a permanent injunction request. Damages sought exceed $24 million.
- Goodman (pro se) and Negron moved to dismiss; Goodman also moved to sever; Lutzke defaulted. Non-party filings by several individuals were submitted; the court struck several non-party filings and took a motion to intervene under advisement.
- The court applied Rule 12(b)(6) standards, accepting well-pleaded facts and assessing whether Plaintiffs plausibly stated claims, including whether statements were actionable fact or nonactionable opinion and whether public-figure actual malice was pled.
- Ruling: Court denied Goodman's motion to dismiss (all nine claims proceed against Goodman). Court granted in part and denied in part Negron's motion: dismissed four counts as to Negron (insulting words; computer claims; unauthorized use; permanent injunction) and allowed five counts to proceed (defamation; statutory conspiracy; common-law conspiracy; tortious interference; intentional infliction of emotional distress). Motion to sever denied; ghost-writing form substitution granted; motion to intervene taken under advisement and some non-party filings struck.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether Negron's Rule 12(b)(6) challenge warrants dismissal of all counts against her | Negron joined videos and republished statements that injured Plaintiffs; Plaintiffs plead specific acts and damages | Negron: only five statements attributed to her, mostly opinion, insufficient to state claims; lacks requisite intent | Court: partial denial — defamation, statutory & common-law conspiracy, tortious interference, and IIED survive; insulting words, computer, unauthorized use, and injunction dismissed as to Negron |
| 2. Whether Goodman's Rule 12(b)(6) motion succeeds (immunity and actual malice defenses) | Plaintiffs allege Goodman acted with knowledge or reckless disregard (reviewed Plaintiffs' online records, scripted videos, retaliatory motive) | Goodman: immunity under Va. Code § 8.01-223.2 for statements on matters of public concern and lack of actual malice; claims are true | Court: deny — Plaintiffs plausibly alleged actual malice/reckless disregard; immunity inapplicable on current record |
| 3. Whether to sever Goodman's trial from co-defendants under Rule 42(b) | N/A — Plaintiffs oppose severance | Goodman: claims of conspiracy among Plaintiffs and co-defendants justify separate trial to avoid prejudice | Court: deny — no showing severance would increase convenience, avoid prejudice, or economize resolution |
| 4. Whether non-party filings and procedural formalities affect the record (ghost-writing, intervention, non-party submissions) | Plaintiffs: require compliance with local rules; oppose some non-party filings | Goodman/Sweigert/non-parties: submitted ghost-writing form request and various filings/decls; Sweigert seeks to intervene | Court: grant Goodman's ghost-writing form substitution; strike several non-party filings; take Sweigert's motion to intervene under advisement and permit amended filing; order briefing on intervention |
Key Cases Cited
- Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943 (4th Cir.) (Rule 12(b)(6) tests complaint sufficiency and does not resolve factual disputes)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S.) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S.) (pleading must present factual matter that permits plausible inference of liability)
- Jordan v. Kollman, 269 Va. 569 (Va. 2005) (elements of defamation under Virginia law)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (U.S.) (distinguishing opinion from provably false factual assertions in defamation law)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S.) (actual malice standard for public-figure defamation)
- Chaves v. Johnson, 230 Va. 112 (Va. 1985) (opinions not actionable; court decides fact vs. opinion as matter of law)
- Hatfill v. New York Times Co., 416 F.3d 320 (4th Cir.) (IIED pleading in defamation context)