Cayuga Nation v. Showtime Networks Inc.
| Decision Date | 17 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | INDEX NO. 157902/2019 |
| Citation | 2020 NY Slip Op 32326 (U) |
| Parties | CAYUGA NATION and CLINT HALFTOWN, Plaintiffs, v. SHOWTIME NETWORKS INC., BRIAN KOPPELMAN, ANDREW ROSS SORKIN, and DAVID LEVIEN, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS.
In this defamation action commenced by plaintiffs Cayuga Nation and Clint Halftown, defendants Showtime Networks Inc., Brian Koppelman, Andrew Ross Sorkin, and David Levien move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to 3211(a)(1) and (a)(7). Plaintiffs oppose the motion. After oral argument, and after a review of the relevant statutes and case law, the motion is decided as follows.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This action arises from allegedly defamatory depictions of plaintiffs Cayuga Nation and Clint Halftown ("Mr. Halftown") in the television series Billions ("the series") which was broadcast by defendant Showtime Networks Inc. ("Showtime"). Specifically, plaintiffs claim that they were portrayed on the series as being involved in an illegal casino land deal, as well as bribery of a public official and blackmail. Doc. 1 at par. 8. However, they further state in their complaint that, at the end of every episode in the series, a disclaimer is shown representing that the "events and characters depicted [in the show] are fictitious" and that "[a]ny similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or to actual events, is purely coincidental." Doc. 1 at par. 34.
The captioned action was commenced by the filing of a summons and complaint on August 15, 2019. Doc. 1. In the complaint, plaintiffs alleged that Cayuga Nation was a sovereign Indian nation (one of six Indian nations known as the Haudenosaunee) recognized by the United States and New York State and that Mr. Halftown was a member of the Cayuga Nation Council as well as its federal representative. Doc. 1 at pars. 2, 12-13. Plaintiffs further alleged that Koppelman was the co-creator and executive producer of the series; Sorkin was the co-creator and a writer of the series; and Levien was a writer and producer of the series. Doc. 1 at pars. 15-17.
In the episode, which was aired on May 5, 2019 and seen by an audience of approximately 761,000 viewers, the character of Chuck Rhoades ("Chuck"), aformer United States Attorney1, is portrayed as "supporting a process identified [as] 'blockchain-based mobile voting' and proposes a pilot program to test the efficacy of this mobile voting for elections in New York." Doc. 1 at pars. 28, 36, 40. In an attempt to institute the mobile voting program ("the MVP"), Chuck asks his father, Chuck Rhoades, Sr. ("Rhoades Sr."), to introduce him to an Indian tribe identified in the episode as the "Cayuga Iroquois"2, with which Rhoades Sr. is depicted to have had previous connections. Doc. 1 at par. 41. Specifically, Chuck asked Rhoades Sr. to "juice [him] in with the tribe", to which Rhoades Sr referred as "[his] casino Indians" and "[his] Indians". Doc. 1 at par. 42. This, asserted plaintiffs, implied that Rhoades Sr. could "lend his and the 'Cayuga Iroquois's' influence to the [MVP]" (Doc. 1 at par. 41); that the Cayuga Nation was "subject to [Rhoades Sr.'s] influence and even control" (Doc. 1 at par. 42); and that the Cayuga Nation and Mr. Halftown had been involved in "a casino land deal and an illegal revenue-sharing agreement." Doc. 1 at par. 44.
Additionally, the episode contained a scene in which Chuck spoke to a character identified as "council member Jane Halftown" ("Jane"). Doc. 1 at par. 43. Although Jane was a female character, she was portrayed as a council member, suchas Mr. Halftown, and even had "his exact and unique surname." Doc. 1 at par. 43. Jane asked Chuck why she should lobby the elections board on behalf of "the people who chiseled us on the land deal surrounding the casino?" Doc. 1 at par. 43. Chuck then replied to which Jane responded that Rhoades Sr. "has tasted the fruits of our tribe in a way that makes us disinclined to trust either him or you." Doc. 1 at par. 43. At that point, a young Native American mother appeared in the scene with a baby fathered by Rhoades Sr. Doc. 17 at 11.
Chuck then told Jane that Rhoades Sr. would "sweeten [her] piece" on a land deal to "what [she felt] was fair." Doc. 1 at par. 43. Plaintiffs claim that this dialogue explicitly set forth a "false and defamatory narrative that the [Cayuga Nation] and [Jane] had previously been engaged in a casino land deal and an illegal revenue-sharing arrangement." Doc. 1 at par. 44.
Later in the episode, Jane, Chuck, and Rhoades Sr. were shown meeting with Hap Halloran ("Halloran"), the commissioner of the election board, to persuade him to institute the MVP. Doc. 1 at par. 46. Jane convinced Halloran to approve the MVP by stating Doc. 1 at par. 47. In Jane's presence, Chuck then hands Halloran an envelope containing airlinetickets and hotel reservations for Halloran and his wife to vacation in Aruba. Doc. 1 at par. 48. Plaintiffs claim that Jane's "participation in the activities depicted [in that scene] attribute[d] criminal conduct to Mr. Halftown." Doc. 1 at par. 54.3 Thus, assert plaintiffs in their first cause of action, defendants committed defamation per se. Doc. 1 at pars. 57, 60-63.
As a second cause of action, plaintiffs allege that defendants defamed them by stating that they participated in an illegal land deal. Doc. 1 at pars. 65-68.
As and for their third and final cause of action, plaintiffs claim that defendants misappropriated their likenesses for the purposes of profit and marketability. Doc. 1 at pars. 70-74.
Defendants now move, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (a)(7), to dismiss the complaint. Docs. 5-15. In support of the motion, defendants allege that the Cayuga Nation is a sovereign nation and thus cannot bring a defamation claim. They further assert that the claims by Mr. Halftown must be dismissed because he was not defamed in the episode and the episode was not unmistakably about him. Defendants further maintain that plaintiffs' misappropriation claim must be dismissed as a matter of law.
In opposition, plaintiffs claim that the Cayuga Nation is not barred from bringing a defamation suit because it is a governmental entity. Doc. 17. They further maintain that the depiction of them in the episode was clearly defamatory insofar as it unmistakably portrayed Mr. Halftown and showed he and the Cayuga Nation committing the crimes enumerated in the complaint as well as participating in "an illicit land deal." Doc. 17 at 9, 12-13. Additionally, plaintiffs urge that they state a claim for misappropriation of likeness.
In reply, defendants reiterate their argument that the Cayuga Nation cannot sue for defamation. They further assert that they did not defame plaintiffs since "the [e]pisode can only reasonably be understood as showing how [Rhoades Sr.] duped the Cayuga Nation into entering a bad land deal, impregnated a young [Cayuga] Nation member, leaving her alone to raise the baby, and how . . . Jane sought to rectify these wrongs while also obtaining access to voting for the Cayuga Nation." Doc. 18 at 6. Further they insist that Jane is not shown to be complicit in Chuck's payoff to Halloran, since only Chuck and Rhoades Sr. were involved in that act. Doc. 18. Additionally, defendants claim that Mr. Halftown cannot maintain a defamation claim because plaintiffs did not allege that the average viewer would understand Jane's character as conveying actual facts about him. Doc. 18 at 14. Finally, defendants argue that plaintiffs' misappropriation claim must fail as a matter of law. Doc. 18 at 16-18.
LEGAL CONCLUSIONS
The Cayuga Nation's Defamation Claim
Initially, as defendants assert, the defamation claim by the Cayuga Nation must be dismissed since the allegedly defamatory material was "directed against a governing body and how it governed, rather than against its individual members" and the episode did not portray "the Tribal Council members [as] individually corrupt or individually promoting a criminal enterprise (see New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 US 254, 292, 84 S Ct 710, 11 L Ed 2d 686 [1964]; Rosenblatt v Baer, 383 US 75, 82-83, 86 S Ct 669, 15 L Ed 2d 597 [1966])." Lazore v NYP Holdings, Inc., 61 AD3d 440, 440 [1st Dept 2009]) (defamation action dismissed where defendant had stated in an editorial that a Native American tribe should not be permitted to operate a proposed casino because it "amounts to a criminal enterprise"). Although plaintiffs claim that the episode portrays Mr. Halftown as a corrupt or criminal member of the council, this Court disagrees and, for the reasons set forth below, finds that he, too, has no viable defamation claim.
Mr. Halftown's Defamation Claim
In order to establish a prima facie case of defamation, plaintiffs must show that the matter published is "of and concerning" them (Julian v American Bus. Consultants, 2 NY2d 1, 17 [1956]). Although it is not necessary for the plaintiffs to be named in the publication, they must plead and prove that the statement referred to them and that a personhearing or reading the statement reasonably could have interpreted it as such (see id.; Prosser & Keeton, Torts § 111 at 783 [5th ed 1984]). This burden is not a light one, and the question of whether an allegedly defamatory statement could reasonably be interpreted to be "of and concerning" a particular plaintiff is a question of law for the courts to decide (see Springer v Viking Press,...
To continue reading
Request your trial