Hotel's Defamation Lawsuit Against Rabbi Shmuley Boteach Over Anti-Semitism Allegations Can Go Forward

An excerpt from Fontainebleau Florida Hotel, LLC v. Botach, decided today by Judge K. Michael Moore (S.D. Fla.):

This case arises from an incident that occurred at the Fontainebleau Florida Hotel …. Plaintiff alleges that the following events occurred:

After more than an hour of loitering, Defendant Boteach engaged in an uneventful conversation with a registered guest of the Hotel and the two parted ways. More than an hour later (after midnight on Sunday, December 2, 2024), Defendant Boteach engaged in a verbal altercation with the same registered guest wherein the guest and Defendant Boteach exchanged hateful words at each other.

The guest used language that was heinous and accused Defendant Boteach of being a "baby killer" and other words that are easily interpreted as antisemitic. Defendant Boteach, in turn, hurled anti-Islamic words at the registered guest and repeatedly shouted, "Allahu Akbar? Are you going to blow yourself up or something? … he uses the expressions of, like, suicide bombers." Within hours, Defendant Boteach posted an edited video of the exchange on Instagram and began his campaign of threats against the Hotel, its ownership, its outside lawyer, and its employees—who had nothing to do with the altercation except that Hotel security de-escalated and ended it.

Plaintiff alleges that following the altercation, the Defendant, who the FAC [First Amendment Complaint] describes as a "social media influencer and rabbi" with "hundreds of thousands of social media followers[,]" went on a "multi-week assault on the [Hotel], its personnel, and representatives—creating AI videos purporting to show them celebrating antisemitism, comparing them to Nazi collaborators, falsely accusing them of banning Jews from the property, and fabricating statements that they embraced a policy of Judenrein, i.e., the extermination of six million Jews." The FAC alleges that Defendant falsely stated that he was denied entry to the Hotel because he is "too Jewish," that the Hotel refused to cooperate with law enforcement's investigation of the incident, and that he "was trespassed from the Hotel for being 'too Jewish[.]'"

Plaintiff further alleges that "Defendant Boteach published a statement that, in part, called for guests 'who have booked' at the Hotel to 'cancel your reservations'" and to "'be smart and cancel and give your hard-earned money to a hotel that doesn't abide antisemites.'" Moreover, Plaintiff alleges:

At all hours of the day and night, Defendant Boteach proceeded to harass the Hotel and its representatives. For example, he posted a "headshot" photograph of the head of the Hotel's outside counsel with the words "DIGITALLY DECAPITATED" and later, at 3:49 am, menacingly threatened that counsel was "about to have a really interesting Shabbat" when he arrived at his synagogue, which Defendant Boteach identified by name and location. Defendant Boteach directly contacted counsel's clergy and posted harassing images of them.

The hotel sued, and the court allowed the defamation claim to go forward:

The FAC alleges that Defendant falsely stated that he was denied entry to the Hotel because he is "too Jewish," that the Hotel refused to cooperate with law enforcement's investigation of the incident, and that he "was trespassed from the Hotel for being 'too Jewish[.]'" Defendant argues that "alleged defamatory statements amount to pure opinion" and that "expressions of opinion, regardless of how offensive, [including] that a party or entity is 'racist' or 'Nazi'[,] are not actionable as defamation[.]"In Response, Plaintiff argues that "[w]hether the Hotel trespassed Defendant Boteach because he is 'too Jewish' is capable of being proven true or false." In Reply, Defendant argues that "[t]he statement that Defendant was banned for being 'too Jewish' is obviously Defendant's hyperbolic opinion based on the sequence of events and circumstances laid out in [the FAC]."  The Court disagrees. The FAC alleges that:

Defendant Boteach knew that he was disseminating false statements because his claims were about events in which he purported to have been personally involved. For example, Defendant Boteach edited a letter that stated he was trespassed because of his threats of litigation by misleadingly deleting from that letter—that he had access to and read—the basis of the trespass (i.e., his threats of litigation) and then he claimed the Hotel trespassed him because he is "too Jewish" (i.e., falsely attributing those words to the Hotel). The claim that Defendant Boteach was trespassed from the Hotel for being "too Jewish" was false because Defendant Boteach was trespassed pursuant to Hotel policy to not entertain people who are threatening litigation against the Hotel.

Accepting the FAC's allegations as true, the Court finds that Defendant's statement that he was "banned for being 'too Jewish'" is capable of being proven false, and thus, a statement of fact or, in other words, the statement is actionable as defamation.

Sean A. Burstyn (Burstyn Law PLLC) represents the hotel.