The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Lex Loci Delicti, not Praetor Peregrinus
Or, Virginia is for lovers, not libel tourists.
From Judge David Oblon's last week in Mireskandari v. Daily Mail & General Trust PLC:
In this defamation case, a United Kingdom … news publication allegedly defamed a UK [lawyer] practicing in the UK at a UK law firm, involving actions that occurred in the UK, through news stories of parochial interest to UK readers, to gain favor with UK police. The distilled question before the Court is, why is this case in Fairfax, Virginia, USA? The legal question is, can the Court properly exercise personal jurisdiction over the UK Defendants under Virginia's Long Arm Statute and the Due Process Clause of the United Stales Constitution?
[No, says the court, for various reasons, and adds:]
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA, Is Not The World's Defamation Court.
Some may have misread the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard Opinion Letter, wherein another judge of this Court held Virginia was the proper forum for actor Johnny Depp's defamation suit against his ex-wife, actress Amber Heard, despite the seemingly thin connection of the parties and the cause of action to Virginia.
For starters, the issue in Depp was of forum non conveniens and venue—not in personam jurisdiction. Nevertheless, any jurisdictional or locational ruling in Depp expressed a limiting principle, not an expansive invitation to forum shop in Fairfax County. The Court held under the lex loci delicti rule that the cause of action in a defamation case arises where the last act for publishing the allegedly defamatory statement took place. In Depp, the last act was when The Washington Post uploaded the statement in an article to the Internet from servers located in Virginia. Stated differently, Depp stands for the principle that Virginia is one of the few places where that defamation action may be adjudicated.
The logical extension of Depp is that the Daily Mail case may be brought where the last link of the publication of the defamatory statements occurred. If that last link was in Virginia, Mr. Mireskandari has not realistically pled that. Merely being accessible is not synonymous with where something is published. Although in paragraph 14, Plaintiff avers Daily Mail "published" the defamatory articles in Virginia, that statement is belied by the rest of the Amended Complaint. Defendants are UK companies operating a UK news publication. And even assuming the place of publication is where the article was first uploaded onto a server, Mr. Mireskandari has not pled that Virginia was the place….
The only real similarity between Depp and this case is that Virginians sitting in Virginia can access both The Washington Post and Daily Mail online. The differences are remarkable: The Washington Post is a US company with offices in Virginia, is printed in Virginia, and its digital platform is created and routed through servers in Virginia. Conversely, Daily Mail is a UK company and has the "'.co.uk" web address of UK domains. Unlike in Depp where the alleged defamatory op-ed was first printed and/or uploaded in Virginia, Mr. Mireskandari has not alleged the Daily Mail's alleged defamatory article was first published in Virginia, as opposed to elsewhere, such as the UK….
The Circuit Court of Fairfax does not sit as praetor peregrinus. {In ancient Rome, a praetor was a judicial officer, who generally handled matters of equity. A praetor urbanus was an arbiter over disputes between citizens; a praetor peregrinus handled suits in which one or both parties were foreigners.} Daily Mail's Motion to Dismiss is granted….
