From right now’s resolution by Choose Paul Oetken in Atas v. N.Y. Occasions Co.:
Plaintiff Nadire Atas, continuing professional se, brings this motion in opposition to Defendants The New York Occasions Firm [and others], alleging defamation. In response to Atas, The Occasions—via information articles, podcast episodes, and interviews of its journalists—defamed her by describing her as a mentally sick girl who has engaged in years-long campaigns of harassment in opposition to her perceived enemies utilizing the web and the Canadian court docket system…. [Defendants’] motions to dismiss are granted….
On January 30, 2021, The Occasions printed an article titled “A Huge Internet of Vengeance” on its web site and in print. The article, written by Defendant [Kashmir] Hill, described the phenomenon of “grievance websites,” which permit nameless web customers to publish malicious and infrequently false accusations about folks for the aim of retribution for perceived slights. It reported that Plaintiff is one such particular person, accountable for nameless web posts focusing on those that have slighted her with unfounded accusations of pedophilia, theft, and fraud, amongst different offenses. The article additionally reported on Canadian court docket proceedings in opposition to Plaintiff for defamation. It included the assertion that in 2017, Choose David Corbett of the Ontario Superior Court docket of Justice deemed Plaintiff “a vexatious litigant who was ‘ungovernable and bent on a marketing campaign of abuse and harassment.'” Moreover, the article reported that on January 28, 2021, the identical choose had issued a ruling stating that Plaintiff was accountable for “illegal acts of reprisal” [referred to as the Caplan Judgment -EV].
On February 10, 2021, The Occasions printed a follow-up article reporting that Plaintiff had been arrested the day before today for harassment and libel. On February 17, 2021, Hill gave an interview on CBC Radio referencing the 2 articles. On April 6, 2021, Defendant Michael Barbaro interviewed Hill about her reporting on The Each day Podcast, which is printed by The Occasions.
On April 7, 2021, Atas was charged with prison harassment and libel below the Canadian Prison Code for offenses occurring between January 1, 2000 and April 7, 2021. One of many alleged victims was Defendant Lily Meier, who’s the daughter of Defendant Ellen Pollock. Pollock is an editor at The Occasions. On April 24, 2021, The Occasions printed an article written by Hill and Defendant Aaron Krolik describing the internet-based “Slander Trade.” The article referenced Atas as “a lady in Toronto who poisoned the reputations of dozens of her perceived enemies by posting lies about them” and linked again to the January 30, 2021 article. On April 26, 2021, Hill and Krolik made visitor appearances on a podcast referred to as In Lieu of Enjoyable, wherein they mentioned their reporting on Atas and the allegations in opposition to her. Lastly, on Might 3, 2021, Barbaro once more interviewed Hill on The Each day. Barbaro referred to Atas as “a lady with a vendetta that stretched again 30 years.”
Atas alleges that every of the aforementioned articles, interviews, and podcasts contained false and defamatory statements about her. She additionally alleges that The Occasions Defendants re- printed the defamatory statements on their social media accounts. Broadly, Atas claims that she was not the supply of any harassment marketing campaign; that she just isn’t mentally sick; that her household has not been attempting for years to get her assist for her psychological well being issues; and that The Occasions’s reporting didn’t precisely mirror the court docket proceedings in Canada or the court docket proceedings have been biased in opposition to her….
Atas’s defamation claims fail as a result of she has not plausibly alleged that the statements in query have been false. To prevail on the motions to dismiss, Atas should plead info demonstrating the falsity of the allegedly defamatory statements…. The Court docket concludes that Atas has failed to indicate that the statements and information articles propounded by The Occasions Defendants weren’t considerably true.
The Caplan Judgment displays (1) that Choose Corbett concluded that Atas “has used the web to disseminate vicious falsehoods in opposition to these in direction of to whom she bears grudges”; (2) that “severe psychological sickness should underlie this conduct”; (3) that “there have been as many as 150 victims of Atas'[s] assaults”; and (4) that she was a vexatious litigant, amongst different findings…. [T]he doctrine of collateral estoppel … “prevents events … from relitigating in a “Non-mutual collateral estoppel permits a defendant who was not get together to the earlier litigation to bar points raised in subsequent litigation.” On a movement to dismiss, even taking all the plaintiff’s allegations as true, “collateral estoppel will nonetheless bar a plaintiff’s declare when [a] plaintiff’s factual allegations have been determined in any other case in a earlier litigation.” Collateral estoppel applies to judgments of overseas courts so long as the district court docket acknowledges the overseas judgment, which the Court docket does right here.…The Caplan Judgment [has collateral estoppel effect] with regard to the problems of whether or not Atas is accountable for the internet-based harassment described in The Occasions’s reporting, whether or not she is a vexatious litigant, and whether or not she has reported affected by psychological sickness.
To help her defamation claims, Atas additionally depends on the truth that the Toronto Legal professional Normal withdrew the prison fees in opposition to her on December 7, 2021. On condition that the costs have been withdrawn after every of the allegedly defamatory statements, articles, and podcasts was printed, this improvement doesn’t retroactively render The Occasions’s protection of the prior authorized proceedings in opposition to Atas false. And whereas Atas claims that the Toronto authorities dropped the costs in opposition to her as a result of they discovered no proof that she had made harassing web posts, she offers no info or proof that this was, in reality, their rationale….
Atas’s claims fail for the impartial cause that The Occasions’s reporting is protected by the honest report privilege. This privilege, as codified below New York legislation, offers that “[a] civil motion can’t be maintained in opposition to any particular person, agency or company, for the publication of a good and true report of any judicial continuing.” … The articles and reporting in query made clear that The Occasions was reporting on judicial proceedings in opposition to Atas. For instance, the January 30, 2021 article acknowledged that “a portrait emerges from authorized filings and proof submitted in court docket instances, newspaper articles and individuals who have identified her over time.” The February 10, 2021 article opened by referring to Atas’s arrest and the costs in opposition to her. The April 24, 2021 article comprises solely a passing reference to Atas, which linked again to the January 30, 2021 article. An unusual reader would perceive The Occasions’s reporting on Atas to be premised on data of the Canadian civil and prison proceedings wherein she was concerned. Atas’s claims due to this fact fail to the extent that they’re premised on The Occasions Defendants’ reporting on the Canadian judicial proceedings, together with the Caplan Judgment and her April 7, 2021 arrest.
The court docket additionally famous that New York’s anti-SLAPP legislation requires a displaying of “precise malice”—i.e., information that the assertion was false or seemingly false—for defamation legal responsibility as to all speech on issues of public curiosity (and never simply when the speech is a few public official or a public determine). The court docket concluded that “Atas’s purported use of the Canadian authorized system and the web as instruments of harassment are issues of public concern, relatively than ‘purely non-public matter[s],'” and that Atas hadn’t plausibly alleged precise malice.
David Edward McCraw represents the Occasions.
