Case: 17-1593 Document: 00117209013 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/06/2017 Entry ID: 6124394 NO. 17-1593 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT SEXUAL MINORITIES UGANDA Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SCOTT LIVELY, individually and as President of Abiding Truth Ministries, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts Lower Court Case No. 3:12-cv-30051-MAP BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT SCOTT LIVELY Mathew D. Staver Horatio G. Mihet Roger K. Gannam Daniel J. Schmid Mary E. McAlister LIBERTY COUNSEL P.O. Box 540774 Orlando, FL 32854 Phone: (407) 875-1776 Facsimile: (407) 875-0770 Email: [email protected] Case: 17-1593 Document: 00117209013 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/06/2017 Entry ID: 6124394 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ........................................................... iii STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ORAL ARGUMENT ......................................... iv JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES............................................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .................................... 5 A) Defendant-Appellant Scott Lively .............................................. 5 B) SMUG’s Lawsuit to Punish and Prohibit Lively’s Core Political Speech and Advocacy in Uganda ................................. 7 C) At the Conclusion of Discovery, SMUG Admitted that it Never Had Any Knowledge of “Any Assistance At All” Provided by Lively to Any of the Alleged Persecutory Acts ... 10 D) At the Conclusion of Discovery, SMUG Admitted that it Never Had Any Knowledge of Any Participation by Lively in Any “Conspiracy” to “Persecute.” ........................................ 12 E) At the Conclusion of Discovery, SMUG Admitted that it Never Had Any Knowledge of Any Relevant Domestic Conduct by Lively ..................................................................... 14 F) The District Court’s Summary Judgment ................................. 16 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 17 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 19 i Case: 17-1593 Document: 00117209013 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/06/2017 Entry ID: 6124394 I. THIS COURT SHOULD REFORM THE DISTRICT COURT’S EXTRA-JURISDICTIONAL AND PREJUDICIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER ADJUDICATING SMUG’S CLAIMS .......... 19 A. Even Though it Lacked Jurisdiction, the District Court Purported to Adjudicate SMUG’s Aiding-and-Abetting and Declaratory Relief Claims ......................................................... 19 B. SMUG Agrees that the District Court Adjudicated its Federal Claims in its Favor, and Promises to Use that Adjudication Against Lively ..................................................... 21 C. In the Absence of Jurisdiction (and Evidence), the District Court’s Adjudication is Unlawful and Ultra Vires ................... 23 D. This Court Has Jurisdiction and Authority to Reform the District Court’s Prejudicial Ultra Vires Order .......................... 25 II. THIS COURT SHOULD VACATE THE DISTRICT COURT’S ORDER ERRONEOUSLY DENYING LIVELY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................. 33 III. THIS COURT SHOULD CORRECT THE DISTRICT COURT’S FAILURE TO DISMISS SMUG’S STATE LAW CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE ........................................................................................ 39 A. The District Court Erred in Relinquishing Original, Mandatory Jurisdiction Over SMUG’s State Law Claims ....... 40 B. The District Court Erred in Relinquishing Supplemental Jurisdiction Over SMUG’s State Law Claims .......................... 44 C. This Court Should Order Dismissal With Prejudice of SMUG’s State Law Claims ....................................................... 46 1) SMUG’s State Law Claims are Time-Barred ................. 47 2) SMUG’s State Law Claims are Barred by the First Amendment ..................................................................... 49 ii Case: 17-1593 Document: 00117209013 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/06/2017 Entry ID: 6124394 a. The First Amendment is Paramount in This Case ...................................................................... 49 b. Lively’s Core Political Speech on Public Issues Merits the Highest First Amendment Protection .............................................................................. 50 c. The Exceptions to First Amendment Protection Previously Entertained by the District Court Are Foreclosed by the Record .............................. 52 d. SMUG Has No Sufficient Evidence to Meet the Strictissimi Juris Specific Intent Standard for Its Civil Conspiracy Claim ................................... 54 4) SMUG Failed to Adduce any Evidence of Damages ..... 55 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 57 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 58 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 59 iii Case: 17-1593 Document: 00117209013 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/06/2017 Entry ID: 6124394 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) .......................... 38,39 Black Rock City, LLC v. Pershing Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 637 F. App’x 488 (9th Cir. 2016) .................................................................. 27,31 Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988) ......................................................................... 50 Boston Prop. Exchange Transfer Co. v. Iantosca, 720 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013) ................................................................................... 56 Bowen v. Eli Lilly & Co., 408 Mass. 204, 557 N.E.2d 739 (1990) ......................... 47 Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) ............................................................. 52 Brandt v. Wand Partners, 242 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2001) ............................................... 1 Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) .......................................... 43 Cash Energy, Inc. v. Weiner, 81 F.3d 147, 1996 WL 141787 (1st Cir. Mar. 29, 1996) .................................... 56 Church v. Gen. Elec. Co., No. CIV.A. 95-30139-MAP, 1997 WL 129381 (D. Mass. Mar. 20, 1997) ....... 49 Corujo v. Eurobank, 299 F. App'x 1 (1st Cir. 2008) ............................................... 39 Coventry Sewage Assocs. v. Dworkin Realty Co., 71 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1995) .......... 41 Custom Auto Body, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., No. 78-0301, 1983 WL 1873 (D.R.I. Aug. 3, 1983) ..................................... 43,44 Delgado v. Pawtucket Police Dep't, 668 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2012) ...................... 45,46 Elec. Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Corp., 307 U.S. 241 (1939) ...................... 26 Envt’l Prot. Info. Ctr., Inc. v. Pacific Lumber Co., 257 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2001) ............................................. 25,26,27,28,29,30,31 iv Case: 17-1593 Document: 00117209013 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/06/2017 Entry ID: 6124394 Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1868) ....................................................... 24,28,33 Forysth County, Ga. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992) ..................... 51 Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490 (1949) ............................. 53,54 Gonzalez-De-Blasini v. Family Dep’t., 377 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 2004) ....................... 45 Horton v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 367 U.S. 348 (1961)......................................... 41 Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) ...................................... 50,51 In re TJX Companies Retail Sec. Breach Litig., 564 F.3d 489 (1st Cir. 2009) ....... 39 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013) .............................. 34,35 K.M.B. Warehouse Distributors, Inc. v. Walker Mfg. Co., 61 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1995) ................................................................................. 43 Lamoureux v. Smith, No. 07953B, 2007 WL 4633272 (Mass. Super. Nov. 5, 2007) .......................... 47 Mansfield, C. & L.M.R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379 (1884) ..................................... 24 Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006) ............................................................. 43 Mastafa v. Chevron Corp., 770 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2014) ................................... 35,36 Melendez Garcia v. Sanchez, No. CIV. 02-1646 ADC, 2007 WL 7610724 (D.P.R. Aug. 23, 2007) ............... 44 Miller Aviation v. Milwaukee Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 273 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2001) ......................................................................... 45,46 Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237 (1934) ................................................................ 38 NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982) ................................ 51,52 Nazario-Lugo v.