Plaintiff Claims P. Diddy's Defamation Damaged Plaintiff's Drug Smuggling Business

Plaintiff says he was "always willing to set up business deals with the rich for drugs."

From Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain's opinion Tuesday in Gonzalez v. Bad Boy Entertainment (S.D.N.Y.):

Plaintiff Alfredo P. Gonzalez, who appears pro se and is currently incarcerated in the Centennial Correctional Facility in Canon City, Colorado, brings this action asserting claims of defamation. He seems to allege that he is a citizen of Colorado, and he sues: (1) Bad Boy Entertainment ("Bad Boy"), which, he alleges, "is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the [S]tate of New York"; and (2) Sean "P. Diddy" Combs, Bad Boy's Chief Executive Officer, whom he alleges is a citizen of the State of New York. Plaintiff seeks $666,000 in damages….

Plaintiff alleges the following: Due to what appear to be his connections with the Sinaloa Drug Cartel, on or about May 5, 2021, Plaintiff received a telephone call from an unidentified business partner of Combs. The business partner told Plaintiff that Combs "was wanting to set up some business deals with [the] Sinaloa Cartel." {Plaintiff seems to allege that he is a member of that cartel.}

Plaintiff responded by saying that he was "always willing to set up business deals with the rich for drugs." Combs's "business partner stated that [Combs] was looking to make a deal to get some young [g]irls/[b]oys for a party in New York." While Plaintiff wanted to speak to Combs himself, he told the business partner that such an arraignment "could not happen" because the cartel did "not sex traffic under age kids." The business partner told Plaintiff "that he ha[d] nothing to worry about [because] … Combs ha[d] everything on lock street slang for no one can fuck with us [sic]." Plaintiff told the business partner that there was "no money" in sex trafficking; the business partner then told Plaintiff that he was making "a big mistake for not tak[ing] the offer from … Combs," and the call ended without an agreement.

The same unidentified business partner of Combs later communicated again with Plaintiff, "asking once again if [Plaintiff] could help get some under[age] [b]oy[s] and [g]irls over the U.S. [b]order and that … [P]laintiff could come to the party and watch the shows they put on." Plaintiff refused; he told the business partner that he "want[ed] no part in their sex offender shit[,] … not to contact him[,] [and] that Sinaloa wants no part in their sex offender[ ] shit…." Plaintiff also insulted Bad Boy. The business partner then told Plaintiff "that he can make [Plaintiff's] life hell because of how much power he has in the streets." Plaintiff told him to "do what you do."

"Due to … Combs['s] [and Bad Boy's] defamation of … [P]laintiff[,] [Plaintiff] has lost all his business contacts in the [S]tate of New York…." Plaintiff was informed by his own business partner "that he cannot do business with [Plaintiff until Plaintiff] helps Bad Boy out. This has cost[ ] … [P]laintiff a lot of money." …

Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he has standing to assert his claims…. "To establish injury in fact [for standing purposes], a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical."

Plaintiff appears to allege that the defendants have injured him with regard to his illegal drug smuggling and sales business by defaming him. Because Plaintiff's business is not alleged to be a legally protected interest, however, Plaintiff has not shown that the defendants have caused him an injury in fact for the purpose of establishing standing. See PharmacyChecker.com LLC v. Nat'l Ass'n of Bds. of Pharmacy (S.D.N.Y. 2024) ("The argument is perhaps best summed up in a leading civil procedure treatise: 'Standing would not be recognized for a smuggler who asserted that his drug traffic was disrupted. Although the smuggler had been injured in fact, … the asserted interest is not one the courts will protect.'" …

Comments

[John F. Carr]

The judge said the plaintiff lacks standing. Ordinarily that would be the end of it. But the judge decided to pile on. She also declared the lawsuit frivolous, which is a decision on the merits. Losing on the merits is a strike. Three strikes and the prisoner is out of 28 USC 1915.

[Bored Lawyer]

Gotta give the plaintiff credit for chutzpah.

When I interned for the US Attorney after my first year in law school, I was assigned to help two AUSAs. One of them was working a complex RICO case against rival gangs of drug dealers. We interviewed one of them as a potential witness, who was describing their operations. When they distributed crack, they did so in vials with various colored tops. Each gang had its own color to indicate which gang it came from. His distributed purple topped vials, while the other distributed gold topped vials. (IIRC, other gangs had red or yellow tops). What happened if another gang used your color, the AUSA asked. We would send someone to kill them, he answered.

After the interview, I told the AUSA, well that's an effective method of trademark enforcement.

(I later practiced IP law. But use more traditional enforcement methods.)

[ReaderY]

My hypothetical has arrived!

I had earlier given a hypothetical of a person who claimed damage to his reputation for criminality anong criminals as an example of the kind of damage to reputation defamation law does not cover. While defamation permits considering reputation within specialized subgroups, those subgroups must themselves be reputable within general society.

[ReaderY]

I would in general handle this as a merits rather than a standing issue. I think the question of whether an interest is legally protected is generally a merits question rather than a standing question. This question may be hotly contested in borderline or first impression cases.

However, the merits here are frivolous. The plaintiff has no plausible claim the interest is legally protected. So it probably doesn’t matter whether this is handled as a standing or a merits issue.

[Bored Lawyer]

Agreed. There is a recent trend to treat merits issues as standing issues.

For example, the recent SCOTUS decision that held lack of standing because the wrong was not likely to be repeated. That seems to me a consideration on the merits whether to issue an injunction. The plaintiff was injured in the past, and might be due some compensation. So there should be standing. Whether a court in equity should enjoin something in the future is a matter of equitable discretion, and depends in part on how likely the wrong will repeat itself.
That's my take, anyway.

[not guilty]

In federal courts (both trial level and appellate), Article III standing is a threshold issue, essential to subject matter jurisdiction. Even if not raised by any party, the court is obliged to analyze the issue sua sponte.

[Bored Lawyer]

I am aware of that. I just don't think "the injury is not likely to be repeated" is a standing issue, it's a remedies issue.

In intellectual property cases, plaintiffs almost always seek damages for past infringement and an injunction against future infringement. The latter is occasionally denied because the court does not believe there is any possibility of future infringement. But the plaintiff can still seek damages for past infringement.

[Ridgeway]

Yet another example of how pimping is indeed not easy.

[gormadoc]

Interesting how quickly this guy ended up in prison when it took this long for P Diddy to be investigated in earnest.

[not guilty]

The opinion does not indicate whether this dismissal was sua sponte or pursuant to a motion to dismiss by the Defendants. I surmise that it is the former.