Don't Forget Your First-Year Civil Procedure Lessons on Personal Jurisdiction

From Castro v. Doe, decided Monday by Judge Mark Pittman (N.D. Tex.):

John Anthony Castro filed this lawsuit on June 16, 2023, alleging that former President Donald Trump, among others, conspired to publish defamatory, verifiably false statements about him on his Wikipedia page. These supposedly false statements include the notion that Castro is a "sleazy tax attorney," did not serve in the military, and is under federal indictment. Castro believes Trump is targeting him as retaliation for the over thirty federal lawsuits Castro has lodged against Trump concerning Trump's actions on January 6, 2021.

The court upheld the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Castro is a vexatious litigant:

Castro's June 2023 original complaint represented the tenth case he has filed in this District in the last five years, six of which have been filed since April 2021. And that says nothing of his dozens of other cases filed across the country in the last few years….

In his Objections, Castro explains, case by case, how each is meritorious and does not support a finding that he is clogging the judicial machinery with meritless litigation. Of note, roughly half of the cases … have suffered problems related to the same issue: jurisdiction, even to Castro's own admission. Even as recently as March 19, 2024, Judge Terry Means, also of the Fort Worth Division, made yet another finding that Mr. Castro brought a lawsuit that lacked personal jurisdiction….

The Court notices a pattern. Mr. Castro seems to pay no attention or care to where he files his lawsuits. Either he actively chooses to sue where he knows the Court lacks personal jurisdiction, or he fails to understand how jurisdiction and venue work, despite many orders informing him of the standard and explaining why he continuously falls short.

Given that Mr. Castro has a law degree, the Court would have hoped he learned how personal jurisdiction worked during his first-year coursework. Mr. Castro claims that he has "learned a hard legal lesson" about personal jurisdiction due to his many cases suffering the same fate, but it is not the Court's job to continue Mr. Castro's legal education here. Federal courts, particularly in the Fort Worth Division, are far too busy with meritorious lawsuits to entertain litigants "learning" how jurisdiction works through a repeat trial-and-error process.

By declaring Mr. Castro, a vexatious litigant and requiring him to obtain leave of court before filing suit in this district, the Court can help ensure Mr. Castro is filing his lawsuits in the right place, thus preventing continued overload of the Court's docket at his hands. Further, a review of Mr. Castro's other endeavors in federal court indicates Castro has been cautioned elsewhere regarding his inappropriate behavior. See, e.g., Castro v. Oliver (D.N.M. 2023) ("Having put this legal matter to rest, the Court concludes by noting that Castro's filing employs a tenor unfamiliar to this Judge and one that is out of step with practice in this district. The Court cautions Castro and requests that any future filings comport with decorum and the respect practitioners typically afford federal judges."); Castro v. Warner (S.D.W. Va. 2023) (observing that Castro's filings "contain numerous examples of clearly inappropriate attacks" and noting that "derisive commentary is of little value to the Court in resolving motions"). The Court notes similar behavior in this case. See ECF No. 45 at 2 (accusing opposing counsel of lying to the Court and engaging in deception as well as accusing the Court of not enforcing ethical rules).

Considering Mr. Castro's history of brazen, jurisdictionally improper lawsuits, his accusations and ad hominem attacks toward opposing counsel, and the Court's burden of having to continually reeducate him regarding the basics of venue and jurisdiction, the Court determines an adequate sanction for Mr. Castro is to have him declared a vexatious litigant and for him to obtain leave of court before filing any additional complaints in this district….

The court also concluded that in this case the court likewise lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants, since their actions were not sufficiently closely linked to Texas (to oversimplify in some measure).

 

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

But has he learned anything?

[John F. Carr]

It's convenient for the court to be able to examine his filing habits by computer. Before PACER did multidistrict vexatious litigants go undetected, or did they not exist because it was too hard to make all the required in person appearances?

[Mr. Bumble]

"...is to have him declared a vexatious litigant and for him to obtain leave of court before filing any additional complaints in this district…."

Will this stop him from continuing in other districts?

[Krayt]

These supposedly false statements include the notion that Castro is a "sleazy tax attorney,"

Wth is a "sleazy tax attorney"? Someone who tries to trick you into paying more to government than you should?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Someone who tries to trick you into paying more to government than you should?"
No, that's the job of the IRS.

[Jett's Pop]

I think it's someone who tells you that you can pay less without a strong legal basis for giving that advice. In Mr. Castro's case, it had something to do with advising U.S. citizens who worked in Australia that they could ignore a previous waiver they had signed. Smith v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. No. 3, 2022 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 163, at *21 n.20 (U.S.T.C. Aug. 25, 2022); https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2022/12/lesson-from-the-tax-court-taxpayers-behaving-badly-2022.html.

[MatthewSlyfield]

Isn't “sleazy tax attorney,” redundant?

[Noscitur a sociis]

No? There are lots of very normal tax attorneys giving lots of normal advice to normal people and their businesses about their tax situation.

[David Nieporent]

Wth is a “sleazy tax attorney”?

Well, it's not Castro, who isn't an attorney at all. (He graduated from law school but is apparently not licensed anywhere. See some of the links at the previous VC discussion of him that I linked to below.)

[orange]

“Sleazy” sounds like a statement of opinion that wouldn’t be actionable in defamation.

And, even if "sleazy" is considered to be a statement of fact, it's hard to imagine how Castro wouldn't qualify as "sleazy".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Castro

The only false statement there is the statement that Castro is an attorney. Apparently even some of his enemies refer to him as an attorney, but he actually is not one.

[Jerry B.]

Sounds like Mr. Castro is training for a job with the DNC.

[Krychek_2]

I just googled the guy. He has in the past run for public office both as a Democrat and a Republican. This year he's running for president as a Republican. Any candidate other than Trump wouldn't have even noticed he was in the race, but Trump, being Trump, has to use an atomic bomb to swat a mosquito.

[Absaroka]

"Trump, being Trump, has to use an atomic bomb to swat a mosquito."

What did Trump do with respect to Mr. Castro?

[Krychek_2]

He called attention to him. Why? (Meaning why would Trump call attention to him, and not why would you ask the question.)

[Absaroka]

"He called attention to him."

How? I mean, did Trump tweet, or give a speech, or what? What Trump did doesn't seem to be mentioned in the decision or the referenced wiki page.

I don't follow Trump's campaign, so maybe everyone knows but me?

[Life of Brian]

Any candidate other than Trump wouldn’t have even noticed he was in the race

In all fairness, Mr. Castro may have drawn just a wee bit of attention to himself by filing lawsuits to try to remove Trump from the ballot in about 20 states. Map here.

[Dan Schiavetta]

In some states there is NO long arm jurisdiction for defamation. New York is an example.

Trump can fly in to the state where Castro lives, defame him so as to ruin his business, then fly back to Florida. Castro would have to go to Florida to sue him.

[Bored Lawyer]

In that situation, NY might allow jurisdiction, if the person flew into NY to publish the defamation.
But merely publishing something defamatory in FL about someone in NY is not enough. Whereas under Calder v. Jones it might be sufficient Constitutionally. Although see Walden v. Fiore, which narrowed that somewhat.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The New York long arm statute specifically exempts defamation.

I looked this up once. It’s true in six other states too. Apparently it’s a relic of the era before national media, when it was considered unfair for a New York resident to sue a Wisconsin publisher in N.Y. court for something he read in a Wisconsin newspaper.

[Bored Lawyer]

I am well aware of that. Case law says if you do additional acts directed at NY that are connected to defamation, you may be subject to jurisdiciton under one of the other subsections of the long arm statute.

[24]New York courts may exercise personal jurisdiction in defamation cases *662 when the defendant’s out-of-state conduct involved defamatory statements projected into New York, “but only where the conduct also included something more.” Best Van Lines, 490 F.3d at 249. The requirement that the Defendant do “something more” is satisfied when at least part of the defamatory content was created, researched, written, developed, or produced in New York. See e.g. Biro, 2012 WL 3262770, at *10 (“courts have typically found long-arm jurisdiction over defamation claims where the defendant engaged in some purposeful activity within New York that was directly related to the creation of the allegedly defamatory work.”); Shamoun v. Mushlin, No. 12-CV-3541, 2014 WL 12776779, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2014) (“Plaintiff must show that the defendant engaged in some purposeful activity within New York that was directly related to the creation of the allegedly defamatory work, such as research, writing, printing, or broadcasting.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Legros v. Irving, 38 A.D.2d 53, 55-56, 327 N.Y.S.2d 371 (1st Dep’t 1971) (exercising jurisdiction over a defamation claim because “all the significant actions culminating in the publication of the [allegedly defamatory] book occurred in New York,” including research and printing, as well as the negotiation and execution of the publishing contract).

[25]Here, although it is a close case, Plaintiff has sufficiently identified “something more” to establish personal jurisdiction over Channel One. First, Plaintiff alleges that Channel One, by its subsidiary and agent Channel One Russia Worldwide (“CORW”), contracts to distribute its programming through platforms such as RCN New York, DirecTV, Comcast, Charter, Verizon Services Corp., Comcast-ATT, Cox, and Frontier Communications to subscribers throughout New York. Pl. Mem. of Law, Dkt. 66 at 15-16; Goldfarb Aff., Dkt. 63 Exs. 3-7. Moreover, Channel One maintains a studio in New York and employs a camera crew and a New York correspondent. Compl. ¶¶ 16, 93-94. Finally, and most significantly, Channel One’s New York-based correspondent, Zhanna Agalakova, interviewed Plaintiff in Channel One’s New York studio on March 23, 2018, in connection with several of the programs that are at issue in this case. Id. ¶ 94. Over the course of the interview, Plaintiff “gave a detailed rebuttal to Walter’s accusations and to the false background narrative,” and informed Ms. Agalakova that the UK inquiry had found that Lugovoy and Kovtun murdered Litvinenko. Id. Despite having Plaintiff’s taped interview, Channel One broadcast the allegedly defamatory allegations that directly contradicted Plaintiff’s statements in three programs in March and April 2018, all after Goldfarb’s interview, without ever airing or disclosing Plaintiff’s contrary statements. Thus, although Plaintiff’s interview never aired, it constitutes activity in New York directly related to the creation of the allegedly defamatory statements subsequently broadcast by Channel One. Compare Symmetra Pty Ltd. v. Human Facets, LLC, No. 12-CV-8857, 2013 WL 2896876, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2013) (“jurisdiction is more likely to lie when the defendant’s contacts with New York were in preparation for the defamatory statement—for example, staying in New York to research a defamatory book or news broadcast) with Trachtenberg v. Failedmessiah.com, 43 F. Supp. 3d 198, 202 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (dismissing defamation claim under § 302 because defamatory content was not “based on research physically conducted in New York”). Because Plaintiff participated in an interview conducted by Channel One in New York, purportedly as part of Channel One’s research or preparation for its subsequent allegedly defamatory programs, it is subject to personal *663 jurisdiction in New York.11 See Tannerite Sports, LLC v. NBCUniversal Media LLC, 135 F. Supp. 3d 219, 234 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), aff’d sub nom. Tannerite Sports, LLC v. NBCUniversal News Grp., 864 F.3d 236 (2d Cir. 2017) (dismissing a defamation case for lack of jurisdiction because, among other things, Plaintiff failed to show that employees of defendant “who assisted in the broadcast interviewed any people in New York or relied on any sources in New York in connection with the creation or broadcast of the [ ] report.”).

In sum, because Channel One’s conduct in New York constitutes “something more” than merely projecting defamatory statements into the forum, the Court finds that Defendant “transacts business” in New York for purposes of satisfying the first prong of § 302(a)(1).

Goldfarb v. Channel One Russia, 442 F.Supp.3d 649 (SDNY 2020)

[Mr. Bumble]

So you're saying NY is a short arm jurisdiction?

[Bored Lawyer]

For defamation. For other claims, it has a long-arm statute. Although more complicated than most states, which just say, anything goes that is consistent with Due Process.

[Mr. Bumble]

You missed the sarc.

[CommentMonkey]

I believe the proper legal term is Tyrannosaurus Rex jurisdiction (for defamation).

[Absaroka]

His wiki page is well worth a read.

I don't quite follow (from the decision) "alleging that former President Donald Trump, among others, conspired to publish defamatory, verifiably false statements about him on his Wikipedia page. These supposedly false statements include the notion that Castro is a “sleazy tax attorney,” ".

The wiki page says "In 2022, Bryan Camp, a professor at Texas Tech University School of Law, gave Castro the "Norm Peterson Award," named after the character on the sitcom "Cheers" who in the show's early years was a sleazy tax accountant"". Professor Camp, from my limited googling, seems unlikely to be conspiring with Donald Trump to defame Mr. Castro. There are people quoted in the wiki page saying unflattering things about Mr. Castro, but AFAICT Trump isn't one of them.

[dariusR]

You're not the only one who doesn't follow. There's a lot that's incredibly confusing to me about this lawsuit.

[David Nieporent]

We discussed Mr. Castro here at the VC before:

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/10/31/interesting-standing-dispute-in-fourteenth-amendment-section-3-case-against-trump/?comments=true#comments

I read up on him at the time. He's a… character.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If anyone is an authority concerning sleazy, inept, unsuccessful, unprofessional (and in some cases former) lawyers, it's former president and current serial defendant and loser Donald J. Trump.

How many of his lawyers have paid for associating with Trump with their law licenses?

How are Jeffrey Clark and Volokh Conspiracy dreamboat John Eastman doing these days? Their pals at the Volokh Conspiracy and Federalist Society no longer seem to be interested in talking about those two for some reason.

[dariusR]

>>>These supposedly false statements include the notion that Castro is ... under federal indictment.<<<

I'm not understanding. Did he also forget first-year civil procedure on defamation? According to the DOJ, he *is* under federal indictment:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/mansfield-man-charged-fraudulent-tax-return-scam

Or is this a different guy? Maybe I'm missing something here.

[David Nieporent]

Maybe I'm missing something here.

You're missing dates. This suit was filed before that indictment.

[dariusR]

Oh, got it – you’re right, I see now.

Though, that raises more questions. Castro claims (if I’m following) Donald Trump wrote on his Wikipedia page that Castro was under indictment but he wasn’t actually under indictment … then, after he filed the defamation lawsuit, he was really indicted?

So is he saying Trump had inside information Castro was about to be indicted? Or was it just a coincidence? (Or was Trump using Wikipedia to signal Russian agents who had infiltrated the Fort Worth IRS office and replaced its staff with clones that they should indict Castro?)

Maybe I'm trying too hard to understand what's going on.

[Absaroka]

Donald Trump as a wikipedia editor - the things I wouldn't have predicted!

[dariusR]

Next time I read an ALL CAPS Wikipedia article, I’ll know who wrote it.

[Ridgeway]

SAD!