United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 1:11-cv-00477-RJL Document 22 Filed 04/18/11 Page 1 of 54 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) SHIRLEY SHERROD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:11-cv-00477 (RJL) ) ANDREW BREITBART, LARRY ) O’CONNOR, AND JOHN DOE, ) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULES 12(B)(3) AND (6) OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TRANSFER VENUE UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) OR 1406(a) BY DEFENDANTS ANDREW BREITBART AND LARRY O’CONNOR 31565109v1 Case 1:11-cv-00477-RJL Document 22 Filed 04/18/11 Page 2 of 54 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT.........................................................................................1 II. PROCEDURAL SECTION – VENUE ..............................................................................2 A. Statement of Facts....................................................................................................2 B. Argument .................................................................................................................4 1. Because venue is improper and/or inconvenient in this district, this action should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) or, in the alternative, transferred to the Central District Of California under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406(A) or 1404(A). ..............................................................4 a. Venue is improper in this District....................................................5 b. In the interest of justice, this action should be dismissed rather than transferred......................................................................7 2. If this Court determines that venue is improper, but does not dismiss, the action must be transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District Of California under § 1406(A).....................9 a. This action could have been brought in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.........................9 b. This case cannot be transferred to Georgia....................................10 3. If this Court finds that venue is proper in this District, this action should nonetheless be transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California in the interest of justice under § 1404(A).........................................................................................11 a. The private interest factors weigh strongly in favor of discretionary transfer to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. ..................................................12 b. The public interest factors weigh in favor of discretionary transfer to the United States District Court for the Central District of California......................................................................15 III. SUBSTANTIVE SECTION – MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 12(B)(6) ..................................................................................................................16 A. Statement of Facts..................................................................................................16 i 31565109v1 Case 1:11-cv-00477-RJL Document 22 Filed 04/18/11 Page 3 of 54 B. Argument ...............................................................................................................28 1. A defamation action may properly be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). .....................................................................................................29 2. The tone and context of the challenged statements signal that they are expressions of opinion based on the true facts disclosed by Sherrod herself and protected as fair comment..........................................29 3. The terms “racist” and “racism” are pervasive and non-actionable opinions in today’s heated political dialogue over the country’s future..........................................................................................................33 4. Each of the statements relating to Sherrod’s alleged “racism” or “discrimination” in the Blog Post is constitutionally-protected opinion. ......................................................................................................35 5. Plaintiff’s false light and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims fail to the same extent as the defamation claim..............................42 IV. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................45 - ii - 31565109v1 Case 1:11-cv-00477-RJL Document 22 Filed 04/18/11 Page 4 of 54 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Abecassis v. Wyatt, 669 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D.D.C. 2009)...................................................................................... 7, 14 Aftab v. Gonzalez, 597 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. 2009).............................................................................................. 6 Airport Working Group of Orange Cty., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 226 F. Supp. 2d 227 (D.D.C. 2002)......................................................................................... 16 Al-Ahmed v. Chertoff, 564 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 2008)............................................................................................ 12 Alszeh v. Home Box Office, 67 Cal. App. 4th 1456 (1998) ................................................................................................... 43 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. ___ (2009).................................................................................................................. 29 Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).................................................................................................................. 29 Black v. City of Newark, 535 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D.D.C. 2008)............................................................................................ 4 Bollea v. World Championship Wrestling, 610 S.E.2d 92 (Ga. App. 2005)................................................................................................. 44 Buckley v. Littell, 539 F.2d 882 (2d Cir. 1976) ..................................................................................................... 34 Chapin v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., 993 F.2d 1087 (4th Cir. 1993) ............................................................................................ 30, 38 Clawson v. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, L.L.C., 906 A.2d 308 (D.C. 2006) ........................................................................................................ 43 Cochran v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 58 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (C.D. Cal. 1998) ................................................................................ 29, 32 Cooper v. Miami Herald Pub. Co., 159 Fla. 296 (1947)................................................................................................................... 40 Cort v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Inc., 311 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................... 43 - iii - 31565109v1 Case 1:11-cv-00477-RJL Document 22 Filed 04/18/11 Page 5 of 54 Couch v. San Juan Unified Sch. Dist., 33 Cal. App. 4th 1491 (1995) ................................................................................................... 43 Cusano v. Klein, 264 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................... 36 De Luca v. New York News, Inc., 109 Misc. 2d 341 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1981).................................................................................... 40 Dodds v. Am. Broad. Co., 145 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 1988) ............................................................................................ 29, 36 Edelman v. Croonquist, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43399 (D.N.J. May 4, 2010)............................................................... 33 Elemary v. Phillip Holzman A.G., 533 F. Supp. 2d 144 (D.D.C. 2008)...................................................................................... 7, 14 Fikes v. Furst, 133 N.M. 146 (2002) ................................................................................................................ 34 Fisher v. Washington Post, 212 A.2d 335 , (D.C. 1965) ...................................................................................................... 30 Flowers v. Carville, 310 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................. 42 Friendship Empowerment And Economic Development v. WALB-TV, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27785 (D. Ga. 2006) ........................................................................... 41 Gipson v. Wells Fargo & Co., 563 F. Supp. 2d 149 (D.D.C. 2008).................................................................................... 13, 15 Hamilton v. Paulson, 542 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2008)............................................................................................ 16 Hercules & Co. v. Shama Restaurant Corp., 566 A.2d 31 (D.C. 1989) .......................................................................................................... 43 Hunter v. New York City, 22 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1189 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1993)............................................................... 34 Jankovich v. Int'l Crisis Group, 494 F.3d 1080 (D.C. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................ 36 Kegel v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Civ. No. 3:06-CV-00093-LRH-VPC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18386 (D. Nev. Mar. 10, 2009)