Ayyadurai v. Floor64, Inc., Civil Action No. 17–10011–FDS

• Decision Date: 06 September 2017
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 17–10011–FDS
• Citation: 270 F.Supp.3d 343
• Parties: Shiva AYYADURAI, Plaintiff, v. FLOOR64, INC. d/b/a Techdirt, Michael David Masnick, Leigh Beadon, and Does 1–20, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

270 F.Supp.3d 343

Shiva AYYADURAI, Plaintiff,

v.FLOOR64, INC. d/b/a Techdirt, Michael David Masnick, Leigh Beadon, and Does 1–20, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 17–10011–FDS

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Signed September 6, 2017

Charles J. Harder, Pro Hac Vice, Douglas E. Mirell, Pro Hac Vice, Ryan J. Stonerock, Pro Hac Vice, Harder Mirell & Abrams LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, Timothy M. Cornell, Cornell Dolan, P.C., Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.

Robert A. Bertsche, Jeffrey Jackson Pyle, Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE

F. Dennis Saylor IV, United States District Judge

This is a tort action arising out of allegedly defamatory statements that the plaintiff falsely claimed to be the inventor of e-mail. Plaintiff Shiva Ayyadurai is a scientist and entrepreneur. In 1979, at the age of 14, he created an electronic-mail system for use at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. On the basis of that creation, he has since claimed to have invented e-mail, and has received some positive media attention on the basis of that claim. Defendants Floor64, Inc., Michael Masnick, and Leigh Beadon operate or write for a website called "Techdirt." Defendants posted a series of 14 articles disagreeing with Ayyadurai's claim, stating, among other things, that he is "a liar," that his claim is "fake," and that he has made several misrepresentations in support of his claim.

Ayyadurai then brought this action, asserting claims for libel, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship.

Defendants have moved to strike the complaint pursuant to the California anti-SLAPP statute and to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, for improper service of process, and, with respect to one of the 14 articles, on the ground that the claim is barred by the Communications Decency Act ("CDA"), 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). For the reasons stated below, the motions to strike will be denied and the motions to dismiss will be granted.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

1. The Parties

According to the complaint, Shiva Ayyadurai "is a world-renowned scientist, inventor, lecturer, philanthropist, and entrepreneur." (Compl. ¶ 1). He "has been recognized internationally for his developments in early social media portals, email management technologies, and contributions to medicine and biology." (Id. ¶ 2). He has four degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, including a B.S. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and a Ph.D. in Biological Engineering. (Id. ¶ 1). He is a resident of Massachusetts, where he operates the International Center for Integrative Systems (a research and education center) and serves as the Chairman and CEO of CytoSolve, Inc. (Id. ¶ 2).

Floor64, Inc., is a California corporation that operates a website called "Techdirt." (Compl. ¶ 6). Michael Masnick is a California resident and the founder and CEO of Techdirt, as well as an editor of the website. (Id. ¶ 7). Leigh Beadon is a resident of Toronto, Canada, and a writer at Techdirt. (Id. ¶ 8).

2. Ayyadurai's Electronic Mail System

According to the complaint, in 1978, while working as a Research Fellow at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Ayyadurai "created email." (Id. ¶ 13). The complaint defines his creation as "a computer program that created an electronic version of a paper-based interoffice mail system, which allowed mail to be sent electronically and consisted of the Inbox, Outbox, Drafts, Folders, Memo, Attachments, Carbon Copies, Blind Carbon Copies (i.e. , "To:," "From:," "Date:," "Subject:," "Body:," "Cc:," Bcc:"), Return Receipt, Address Book, Groups, Forward, Compose, Edit, Reply, Delete, Archive, Sort, Bulk Distribution, etc." (Id. ). He named the program "email," because it was "the ‘electronic’ (or ‘e’) version of the interoffice paper-based ‘mail’ system" that was used by physicians at the medical school. (Id. ¶ 16). According to the complaint, he was the first person to use that term. (Id. ). In 1982, he obtained copyright registrations for his e-mail code and user's manual, which he contends were the first two works registered under the title "email." (Id. ¶¶ 17, 23).

3. Ayyadurai's Recognition as the Inventor of E–Mail

A variety of sources, both academic and in the popular press, have recognized Ayyadurai as the inventor of e-mail. (Id. ¶ 18–21). In 2011, TIME magazine published an article titled "The Man Who Invented Email," which stated that "email—as we currently know it—was born" when Ayyadurai created his electronic-communication system in 1978. (Compl. Ex. E). In the article, Ayyadurai recounted how he created functions such as "cc," "bcc," and the ability to attach documents in order to replicate the functions that doctors were already using in the paper-based interoffice mail system at the University of Medicine and Dentistry. (Id. ).

In 2012, Wired magazine published an article titled "Who Invented Email? Just Ask ... Noam Chomsky." (Compl. Ex. F). The article began by stating, "Who invented email? That's a question sure to spark some debate." It recounted the debate concerning the creation of e-mail, providing an overview of the various electronic messaging systems that could be considered the "original" e-mail, and quoted Tom Van Vleck, the creator of one of those systems, stating that "[t]here seems to be little disagreement over who wrote what, and approximately when.... The argument is over what to call things." (Id. ). The article noted that Chomsky was "putting his weight behind V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai," but stated that "the debate will no doubt continue." (Id. ).

According to the complaint, Ayyadurai was recognized as the creator of e-mail in a 2015 CBS television program, as well as in statements and publications by various individuals, including Leslie Michelson, the Director of the High Performance Computing Center at Rutgers University; Desh Deshpande, the Founder of Sycamore Networks and Co–Chairman of the National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship; and Deborah Nightingale, a former professor of engineering systems at MIT. (See Compl. ¶¶ 21, 22, 25, 27).

4. Techdirt's Allegedly Defamatory Articles

Between September 2014 and November 2016, Techdirt published 14 articles about Ayyadurai. Thirteen were written by Mike Masnick and one was written by Leigh Beadon. (See id. ¶¶ 34–47). The article written by Beadon consists primarily of re-posted comments submitted by readers in response to other articles on Techdirt, along with some commentary by Beadon. (See Compl. Ex. S).

The complaint identifies 84 allegedly defamatory statements contained within the 14 articles. (See Compl. ¶¶ 34–47).¹ Most of the allegedly defamatory statements are statements to the effect that Ayyadurai's claim to have invented e-mail is false. For example, one article states that Ayyadurai is "perpetuating a ‘fake story’ "; another states that he "and his friends "misrepresent reality [and] they fraudulently make claims that are easily debunked"; and another states that "Ayyadurai's claim that he invented email is complete bullshit. It's not true. Not even remotely." (Id. ¶¶ 34(c), 36(a), 45(a)).

Other statements identified in the complaint suggest that Ayyadurai has misrepresented the significance of a copyright registration and has misrepresented a 1977 RAND report on electronic messaging written by Dave Crocker. For example, one article states that Ayyadurai "misrepresents what a copyright registration means"; another states that it is "absolutely false" that "the ‘US government officially recognized Ayyadurai as the inventor of email’ in 1982"; and another states that Ayyadurai's claim to have invented e-mail "prey[s] on ... an almost fraudulent misquoting of Dave Crocker." (Id. ¶¶ 34(f), 36(b), 37(b)). There are also statements that Ayyadurai's claim has changed over time; that his entire identity is based upon his false claim; and that he accuses his opponents of racism (he is originally from India). (See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 36(h), 41(b), 41(g)).

B. Procedural Background

Ayyadurai filed the complaint in this action on January 4, 2017. The complaint asserts three claims, each against all three defendants: libel (Count One); intentional interference with prospective economic advantage ("IIPEA") (Count Two); and intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED") (Count Three).

On February 17, defendants Floor64 and Masnick moved to strike the complaint pursuant to the California anti-SLAPP statute and to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On March 14, defendant Beadon also filed separate motions to strike and to dismiss.

II. Legal Standard

On a motion to dismiss, the Court "must assume the truth of all well-plead[ed] facts and give plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences therefrom." Ruiz v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. , 496 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2007) (citing Rogan v. Menino , 175 F.3d 75, 77 (1st Cir. 1999) ). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must state a claim that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, ... on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (citations omitted). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). Dismissal is appropriate if the facts as alleged do not "possess enough heft to show that plaintiff is entitled...