Former Va. Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax's #TheyLied Libel Lawsuit Against N.Y. Public Radio

It was just filed today, Fairfax v. N.Y. Public Radio & WNYC (E.D. Va. Aug. 6, 2022); I'm traveling and so don't have time to analyze it closely, but I thought I'd link to the Complaint. Here's the opening, which of course is just Fairfax's allegation:

This defamation suit arises primarily from intentionally fabricated, false, and politically-motivated express and implied defamatory per se and per quod statements made with "actual malice" by both Meredith Watson … and Vanessa Tyson … alleging fictitious and intentionally fabricated sexual assaults by Justin Fairfax against them in 2000 and 2004, respectively. Those statements were published, republished, repeated, endorsed and presented as fact – both expressly and in context – with "actual malice" by NYPR and Melissa Harris-Perry … on or about August 6, 2021, during a broadcast of NYPR's and WNYC's news program "The Takeaway" titled "Politics, Power, and Abuse."

Comments

[Shamie Ervin iv]

So far, my sentiments lie with the plaintiff on this one. The allegations are deeply disturbing.

[DaivdBehar]

The complaint was 111 pages. Were any actual physical or financial damages cited?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Under New York law (which I assume applies here), if you don't identify the defamatory statements in the Complaint, the suit is dismissable on the pleadings.

[Gandydancer]

Bad assumption. The complaint is brought under Virginia law, and -I- assume that since you don't know that you have no sound basis to believe that the allegedly defamatory statements weren't identified.

[Dan Schiavetta]

New York does not have long arm jurisdiction for defamation. If you’re libeled by an out of stater you have to go to that person’s state to sue.

[MatthewSlyfield]

Interesting but irrelevant. In the case at issue, the Plaintiff is from Virginia and the Defendant is from New York.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Sorry, I was drunk.

[Michael P]

Is it customary for a libel complaint to not specify which claims the defendants made are supposedly libelous?

I didn't read the whole complaint in detail, but I get the sense that it's a long-after-the-fact dispute over whether intimate encounters were consensual -- with the encounter at Duke University conceded as actually happening (Fairfax claims there was an exonerating witness present for the whole encounter). For example, the reference to claims by one defendant that she "cried, choked and gagged" suggests that an encounter may have started out consensually but she believes it stopped being consensual at some point. But the complaint doesn't indicate which of the defendants' allegations are supposedly libelous.

[Jerry B.]

“(Fairfax claims there was an exonerating witness present for the whole encounter)”

Well, that certainly sounds pervy.

[Kazinski]

And a good time was had by all, at least until after the fact.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This is one of the worst-drafted complaints filed by purported lawyer, and in a just world there would be sanctions and disciplinary consequences.

In addition to failing to identify the defamatory statements and failing to allege any damages, much less the $75,000 required for diversity jurisdiction, much less the $35 million they are seeking, there are 21 pages that seem to be leftover from a prior (unsuccessful) lawsuit against CBS.

I don't know whether Mr. Fairfax has indeed been wronged by the press, but this is a spectacularly unpersuasive way to try to show it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A brief review of the complaint inclined me to wonder how much defamation experience the lawyer(s) who wrote that document possessed.

Why did Prof. Volokh reach so quickly for this one while ignoring the Alex Jones developments?

Clingers gonna cling.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why don't you apply to be a contributor on Reason or the VC?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

As Katy suggested to Boon . . . I'm too well to attend.

[Kazinski]

It may be that he just wanted to file suit, so he can claim the allegations had to be false because he sued.

It doesn't explain all the errors, but it is a Lt. Governor of New York, so people aren't expecting loads of competence.

[DaveM]

Former Lt. Governor of Virginia, I'm sad to say, not New York.

[John F. Carr]

Footnote 1 of the complaint says this suit was filed now because the statute of limitations was about to expire. The plaintiff is allowed a chance to amend.

[John F. Carr]

I remember a scene from a TV drama series I watched probably in the 1980s. A lawyer was regretting being duped into holding off filing suit until the statute of limitations had expired. Just a few minutes ago, close of business in California. But wait! The court in Hawaii is still open for a few more hours. Send the lawsuit there instead. I don't know if this is or would have been a viable legal strategy.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, good eye. That explains a lot.

[Stephen Lathrop]

#TheyLied Libel Lawsuit — Why does that get repeated in VC headlines, about multiple cases? Is it intended to impart information, raise questions, engage interest, what?

Seems kind of redundant. Any libel case posits a question—whether someone lied, right? We can take that for granted. So using that construction repeatedly seems intended to make some additional point. But what is it?

[Michael P]

It's a modification of #MeToo, except from the other side of an accusation, and similarly asserting that one has been wronged. An analogous label would be "#MeToo assault lawsuit", except those would typically be tolled by the statute of limitations.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Got it. It invokes commonplace stupidity, practiced online. Now try to answer the question. Why again and again in headlines on this blog?

[OtisAH]

Because it promotes that hashtag should someone tweet the article without comment.

[Scribe]

I miss notice pleading.

[Mr. Bumble]

How does one prove "malice"?

[Michael P]

The finder of fact -- probably a jury in this kind of case, but maybe the trial judge -- determines that a false assertion of derogatory fact was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. It doesn't involve quite as much mind-reading as it might seem at first.

[Mr. Bumble]

So how is it that "public figures" almost never prevail in libel cases?

[Purple Martin]

Because they nearly always put forward what is mostly standard reporting they don't like (often just reporting on what other credible sources reported), as defamation.

(Both "almost never" and "nearly always" are probably overstating it but for balance, it seems appropriate to use the mirror image of your term.)

[wolfefan]

Purple Martin has it right in the vast majority of cases. Additionally, it's really hard to prove that someone knew that what they were saying was factually incorrect.

[OtisAH]

With evidence. Or, if you’re a Conspirator or a commenter at the VC, you just declare it.

[jjsaz]

I couldn't care less about this man; the complaint is horribly written, but I have to assume he plans to amend it. Footnote 1 on Page 2:

"Under Virginia law, a party who has been defamed must file a lawsuit within 1-year of the slander or libel at issue in order to maintain a legal claim for the damages caused by the offending parties’ defamatory statements."

[ah....Clem]

Another day, another LOLsuit.

Does Virginia's anti-SLAPP laws apply to cases filed in federal court?