Black v. Ganieva
| Decision Date | 30 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21 Civ. 8824 (PAE) |
| Parties | LEON D. BLACK, Plaintiff, v. GUZEL GANIEVA, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
This decision resolves motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) of plaintiff Leon Black.
Black brings claims against (1) Guzel Ganieva, with whom he had been in a lengthy extramarital relationship and who in 2021 sued Black in New York State Supreme Court; (2) Wigdor LLP Ganieva's counsel in the state court litigation; (3) Josh Harris, a former co-worker and alleged rival of Black's at the investment management firm Apollo Global Management (“Apollo”); and (4) Steven Rubenstein, a public relations executive. Black brings substantive and conspiracy claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., against Ganieva, Harris, and Rubenstein (the “RICO defendants”); defamation claims against all defendants; and breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against Ganieva.
All defendants have moved to dismiss. For the following reasons the Court grants the motions to dismiss the RICO claims, the sole basis for federal jurisdiction. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the FAC's remaining state-law claims, and therefore dismisses these without prejudice to Black's right to pursue them in state court.
The following background is pertinent to the motions to dismiss. Because the RICO claims center on Ganieva's state-court lawsuit, which Black's FAC portrays as the work of a cabal constituting a RICO enterprise and aimed at damaging him, the Court recounts that lawsuit at length.
Black is a financier and Apollo's founder. FAC ¶ 1. In 2008, he began an extramarital relationship with Ganieva, which continued, on and off, through 2014. Id. ¶¶ 2, 32. In the years following 2014, Black paid or agreed to pay Ganieva several million dollars. Id. ¶ 2.
Ganieva is a Russian national who lives in New York. Id. ¶ 25.
Wigdor LLP (“Wigdor”) is a law firm based in New York. Id. ¶ 26.
Harris, a Florida resident, was a business partner of Black's who began working with him in the 1980s and later was designated a co-founder of Apollo. Id. ¶¶ 3, 27.
Rubenstein, a New York resident, is president of an eponymous public relations firm. Id. ¶ 28. At all relevant times, the firm did work for Apollo, although Rubenstein himself, allegedly, separately schemed against Black. Id.
On June 1, 2021, Ganieva filed suit in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan against Black. Id. ¶ 72; State Compl.; Ganieva v. Black, Index No. 155262/2021 (“State Dkt.”), Dkt. 1. Her Complaint recounted Black and Ganieva's relationship, its deterioration-punctuated by an alleged violent sexual assault-and Black's coercion of Ganieva to conceal their relationship. Its claims of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) were largely based on Black's public statements about Ganieva. Its claims of gender-motivated violence were based on an alleged rape of Ganieva by Black.
According to Ganieva's Complaint, in March 2008, Black and Ganieva, then working as a model, met at an event for International Women's Day. State Compl. ¶ 20. Black began taking Ganieva out to dinner and courted her, including arranging professional opportunities. Id. ¶¶ 21, 23.
Soon after the relationship began, and continuing for several years, Black allegedly “forced sadistic sexual acts on [Ganieva].” Id. ¶ 26; see id. ¶¶ 27-28. Ganieva “would tell Black to never speak to her or contact her again,” but Black would “induce her to meet him again,” including by promising to be her mentor, support her child, fund a movie, purchase a townhouse and convert it into a museum that she could run, and help with her application to Harvard Business School. Id.¶¶ 29-30. Throughout, Black “engaged in textbook harasser behavior.” Id. ¶31.
In 2011, Ganieva's Complaint alleged, she began coursework towards an undergraduate degree in math, as part of an effort to distance herself from Black-which also included cutting off most of her hair to make herself less attractive. Id. ¶¶ 32-33. On June 2, 2011, Ganieva and Black agreed that he would loan her $480,000 over five years at ¶ 5% interest rate. See Id. ¶¶ 35-37.
On May 24, 2013, they agreed to another, identical loan. See id. ¶ 39. These loans were Black's way of “excusing himself' from the harm he had inflicted on Ganieva. Id. ¶ 40. Ganieva's Complaint also alleged that Black told Ganieva: “If you do not take the money, I will put you in prison” and, “If you do not take the money, I will destroy your life.” Id. ¶ 3 (emphasis omitted).
In May 2014, after Ganieva graduated, she accepted Black's offer to help her find a job in finance. Id. ¶¶ 41, 43. But, Ganieva's Complaint alleged, none of the interviews Black arranged “were meant to be legitimate”; they were “part of Black's sick plan to make her feel grateful to him .. . [and] allow him to belittle and humiliate her after each job rejection.” Id. ¶ 42. After several rejections, Black told Ganieva that “he is the ‘only one' who can help her escape her ‘miserable life.'” Id. ¶ 46.
On July 6, 2014, Ganieva's Complaint alleged, Black sexually assaulted Ganieva while she was “in a weakened state, having been sick for almost a week.” Id. ¶ 49; see id. ¶¶ 47-54. Ganieva then “took her son and left New York.” Id. ¶ 55. Ganieva still felt threatened by Black, who would call her to tell her he knew where she had recently been, with whom she had been, and what she had been wearing. Id. ¶ 56.
In 2015, Ganieva's Complaint alleged, she asked to meet with Black in New York City. The loan from 2011 was coming due, and she “wanted to know what she could do to be able to live her life without his continued involvement.” Id. ¶ 58. On October 18, 2015, the two met. Ganieva signed an agreement that forgave her loans but which she later learned contained a nondisclosure agreement. She did not receive a copy of the document and is unsure as to its terms. Id. ¶¶ 64-66, 71. From then until April 2021, Ganieva received regular payments from Black. Id. ¶ 72. During this period, Ganieva unsuccessfully asked Black for a copy of what she signed on October 18, 2015. Id. ¶ 74.
On October 15 and 16, 2019, Ganieva's Complaint alleged, she texted Black to ask again for a copy of the agreement, while accusing him of sexual harassment, sex trafficking, rape, and blacklisting. See id.
On February 18 and March 6, 2020, Ganieva's then-counsel (not Wigdor) sent Black letters seeking a copy of the agreement. Id. ¶ 75.
On October 29, 2020, during an Apollo earnings call, Black allegedly stated that there had never been any allegations that he “engaged in any wrongdoing, because [he] did not.” Id. ¶¶ 6, 77 (emphasis omitted). That statement, Ganieva's Complaint alleged, was a “tipping point” for her. Having begun law school, it alleged, Ganieva had a better understanding of her rights and wanted to hold Black accountable. Id. ¶ 7.
On March 17, 2021, Ganieva publicly tweeted that Black was a “predator” who had “sexually harassed and abused” her for years. Id. ¶ 9, The following day, Ganieva's Complaint alleged, Black texted Ganieva and told her to call him immediately. She refused. Id.
On April 8, 2021, an article quoted Black as describing his relationship with Ganieva as consensual. It termed fabricated Ganieva's allegations that he had engaged in harassment or inappropriate behavior. It alleged that Ganieva had extorted him and that, to spare his family embarrassment, he had paid her to deter her from going public about their relationship. Id. ¶¶ 1-2, 82. Ganieva's Complaint alleged that Black's statement was knowingly false and made with malice, and that Black caused it to be published with reckless disregard for the truth. Id. ¶¶ 84-86. It further alleged that Black's false and defamatory statements caused her emotional distress. Id. ¶¶ 88-90.
Ganieva's Complaint brought claims-all under state law-of defamation, defamation per se, IIED, and gender-motivated violence in violation of the New York City Gender Motivated Violence Act (“GMVA”), N.Y.C. Admin Code § 8-901 et seq.
On July 19, 2021, Black filed an answer. Among other things, it quoted text exchanges between him and Ganieva. These, the answer asserted, revealed a consensual relationship, and refuted Ganieva's claims of assault and unlawful threats. See FAC ¶¶ 75-88; Ans.; State Dkt. 4.
On August 9, 2021, Ganieva filed a First Amended Complaint (“State FAC”) in New York state court. It added a claim of retaliation under the GMVA. See FAC ¶¶ 82-84; State FAC ¶¶ 245-89; State Dkt. 26. It also added three new sets of allegations.
First, it alleged “violent sexual acts” by Black against Ganieva. As publicly filed in state court (and in this litigation), those allegations are heavily redacted. The publicly unredacted allegations claimed that Black intentionally caused Ganieva pain, that he sought to keep confidential his “abnormal and atypical sexual needs,” and that Ganieva feared-and continued to fear-that that Black would physically harm her. State FAC ¶¶ 33-49.
Second it alleged facts about Black's relationship with sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein. It noted that, at the time of his death, Epstein was facing substantive and conspiracy charges of sex trafficking. Id. ¶¶ 53-55. According to Ganieva's State FAC, Black viewed Epstein as “a friend worthy of trust” and his “best friend” and had paid Epstein $158 million between 2012 and 2017, even though Epstein...
To continue reading
Request your trial