Tannerite Sports, LLC v. Nbcuniversal Media LLC
135 F. Supp. 3d 219
| S.D.N.Y. | 2015Background
- Tannerite, an Oregon-based company that makes binary explosive rifle targets, seeks injunctive and monetary relief for alleged economic and reputational harm from NBCUniversal News Group and WLEX statements aired March 23–24, 2015.
- WLEX moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2); NBCU moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
- NBCU’s March 23, 2015 NBCU Report depicted explosive targets, including holding a target like a bomb, and NBCU Internet Article covered similar topics; WLEX aired NBCU Report in its broadcast zone and published WLEX Report and WLEX Internet Article on March 24, 2015.
- Tannerite alleges that WLEX’s and NBCU’s statements caused reputational and economic harm; WLEX’s Affiliation Agreement with NBCU allegedly ties WLEX to NBCU content.
- WLEX testified that its Affiliation Agreement does not permit NY broadcast, LEX18.com targets its local audience, and only a small number of NY residents/viewers accessed the WLEX Internet Article or subscribers.
- The court analyzes personal jurisdiction under New York’s long-arm statute (Sections 302(a)(1) and (a)(3)) and defamation-related jurisdiction, and applies the standard for Rule 12(b)(6) to NBCU’s statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction over WLEX | Tannerite contends WLEX’s NY-related contacts via NBCU ties satisfy 302(a)(1)/(a)(3). | WLEX argues it lacks purposeful direction to NY and no substantial nexus to the claims; NY access to its site is too incidental. | No 302(a)(1) or 302(a)(3) jurisdiction; discovery denied. |
| Whether defamation claims against NBCU are cognizable under NY law | NBCU statements were false and malicious, causing reputational harm. | Statements were substantially true or too imprecise to be false; no defamation by implication. | Defamation claims against NBCU dismissed on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds. |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted | Amendment could cure jurisdictional and falsity deficiencies. | Amendment would be futile given deficiencies. | Leave to amend denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Governing authority v. Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful direccion and minimum contacts for specific jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) (relationship must arise from the defendant's own forum-state contacts)
- Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, 732 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2013) (proper analysis of specific jurisdiction under CPLR 302; purposeful direction)
- Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. v. Peaslee, 88 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 1996) (defamation claims and transactional nexus considerations)
- SPCA of Upstate New York v. American Working Collie Ass’n, 18 N.Y.3d 400 (2012) (defamation exception under NY long-arm; defamation-specific analysis)
- Printers II v. Professionals Pub., 784 F.2d 141 (2d Cir. 1986) (defamation and jurisdictional standards in Second Circuit)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (general and specific jurisdiction framework)