Yasser Abbas v. Foreign Policy Group, LLC
414 U.S. App. D.C. 465
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- Yasser Abbas, son of Mahmoud Abbas, sued Foreign Policy Group and Jonathan Schanzer in DC defamation suit arising from a 2012 article.
- District Court dismissed the complaint under the DC Anti-SLAPP Act’s special motion to dismiss with prejudice and stayed discovery.
- Abbas appealed contending diversity jurisdiction federal court cannot apply the DC Anti-SLAPP Act; relying on Shady Grove to require applying Federal Rules.
- Court held that while Abbas’s argument has force, the DC Anti-SLAPP Act cannot govern pre-trial dismissal in federal diversity cases because Rules 12 and 56 govern instead, under Shady Grove and the Rules Enabling Act.
- Even if the DC Act does not apply, the complaint fails under Rule 12(b)(6) because the two article questions are not actionable defamation.
- Court affirmed dismissal (via Rule 12(b)(6)) and held dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a federal diversity court apply the DC Anti-SLAPP Act? | Abbas: DC Act should apply; conflicts with federal rules if not. | Foreign Policy Group: Act should govern pre-trial dismissal; not preempted. | No; federal Rules govern, DC Act cannot control pre-trial dismissal in diversity cases. |
| Do the article’s questions constitute defamation under DC law? | Abbas: questions imply false accusations of enrichment and wrongdoing. | Defendants: questions are not factual statements and cannot be defaming. | Questions are not actionable defamation under DC law; no plausibility under Rule 12(b)(6). |
| Does Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal independently support affirmance? | Not needed; should survive anti-SLAPP analysis. | Rule 12(b)(6) suffices; complaint fails to state a claim. | Yes; dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper and alternative grounds support affirmance. |
| Should the dismissal be with prejudice? | Not addressed separately. | Precedent on Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal suggests prejudice appropriate if amendment cannot cure. | Yes; dismissal with prejudice is warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) (confirms Rules Enabling Act preemption framework and that some rules regulate procedure)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard requiring plausibility)
- Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1 (1941) (test for whether a rule regulates procedure under the Rules Enabling Act)
- Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965) (confirms application of chosen procedural rules and autonomy of Federal Rules)
- Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC, 715 F.3d 254 (9th Cir. 2013) (Federal Rules govern pre-trial dismissal; state anti-SLAPP analogs not persuasive)
- Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (addressing standards for affirming district court decisions on alternative grounds)