Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

• Decision Date: 19 September 2019
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17cv566-MHT
• Parties: CORAL RIDGE MINISTRIES MEDIA, INC., d/b/a D. James Kennedy Ministries, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

406 F.Supp.3d 1258

CORAL RIDGE MINISTRIES MEDIA, INC., d/b/a D. James Kennedy Ministries, Plaintiff,

v.AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17cv566-MHT

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division.

Signed September 19, 2019

Charles Edward Hall, Jr., Attorney at Law, Dadeville, AL, David Charles Gibbs, III, Pro Hac Vice; Gibbs Law Firm PA, Paul Scott Miller, Pro Hac Vice; Bartonville, TX, for Plaintiffs.

Ambika K. Doran, Pro Hac Vice; Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Seattle, WA, Harlan Irby Prater, IV, Robert Ashby Pate, Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC, Birmingham, AL, Tim Cunningham, Pro Hac Vice; Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Portland, OR, Robert David Segall, Shannon Lynn Holliday, Copeland Franco Screws & Gill, PA, Montgomery, AL, Defendants.

OPINION

Myron H. Thompson, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. ("Coral Ridge") filed this lawsuit against three defendants: the Southern Poverty Law Center, Inc. ("SPLC"), Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon"), and the AmazonSmile Foundation ("AmazonSmile"). The lawsuit is based largely on Coral Ridge's allegations that, because of its religious opposition to homosexual conduct, SPLC has designated it as a "hate group" and that, because of this designation, Amazon and AmazonSmile have excluded it from receiving donations through the AmazonSmile charitable-giving program.

Coral Ridge has three claims against SPLC: a state claim that its "hate group" designation is defamatory and federal claims for false association and false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125. Coral Ridge has a single claim against the Amazon defendants: a federal claim that they excluded it from the AmazonSmile charitable-giving program based on religion, in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a et seq.¹

This lawsuit is before the court on the United States Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant SPLC's and the Amazon defendants' motions to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules on Civil Procedure. After an independent and de novo review of the record, and for reasons that follow, the court overrules Coral Ridge's objections to the recommendation and adopts the recommendation that this case should be dismissed in its entirety, albeit for reasons, in some instances, different from the magistrate judge's.

I. JURISDICTION

The court has jurisdiction over Coral Ridge's federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-6(a) (Title II), and 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a) (Lanham Act); and over its state claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental) and 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity).

II. MOTION-TO-DISMISS STANDARD

"To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must plead ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Michel v. NYP Holdings, Inc. , 816 F.3d 686, 694 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). "The allegations in the complaint must be accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Michel , 816 F.3d at 694.

Crucially, however, the court need not accept as true "conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts." Oxford Asset Mgmt., Ltd. v. Jaharis , 297 F.3d. 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2002) ; see also Roberts v. Ala. Dept. of Youth Servs. , 2013 WL 4046383, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 9, 2013) (Thompson, J.) ("[G]eneralizations, conclusory allegations, blanket statements, and implications will not" allow the complaint to survive a motion to dismiss). Conclusory allegations are those that express "a factual inference without stating the underlying facts on which the inference is based." Conclusory , Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).

As recognized by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the "application of the plausibility pleading standard makes particular sense when examining public figure defamation suits" such as this one, given that "there is a powerful interest in ensuring that free speech is not unduly burdened by the necessity of defending against expensive yet groundless litigation." Michel , 816 F.3d at 702.

III. BACKGROUND FACTS

The allegations of the complaint, taken in the light most favorable to Coral Ridge, establish the following facts. Coral Ridge is a Christian ministry whose main activities include broadcasting via television, and otherwise spreading, the "Gospel of Jesus Christ," as well as fundraising. Am. Compl. (doc. no. 40) at ¶¶ 32-39. In addition to being a Christian ministry, it is, by its own account, a media corporation, see id. , as is also evident from its name, Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. Its vision statement, included in its bylaws, is "to communicate the Gospel ... and a biblically informed view of the world, using all available media." Id. at ¶ 33. Its "mission" includes "proclaim[ing] the Gospel upon which this Nation was founded." Id. at ¶ 38.

Coral Ridge was founded in 1974 by David James Kennedy, an American pastor, evangelist, and broadcaster, and it produced a weekly television program, "The Coral Ridge Hour" (now called "Truths that Transform"), which "was carried on television networks and syndicated on numerous other stations with a peak audience of three million viewers in 200 countries." Id. at ¶ 31-32. Kennedy also had a daily radio show that ran from 1984 to 2012. Id. at ¶ 32.

Coral Ridge continues to broadcast Kennedy's "Truths that Transform" on television. Id. at ¶¶ 35, 39. It espouses "biblical morals and principles" on homosexuality and marriage. Id. at ¶ 58. It also opposes same-sex marriage and the "homosexual agenda" based on its religious beliefs. Id. at ¶ 82.

Coral Ridge alleges that it "opposes homosexual conduct," but "has nothing but love for people who engage in homosexual conduct." Id. at ¶ 61. It says that its "position on LGBT issues is inextricably intertwined and connected to the [its] religious theology." Id. at ¶ 155. It views homosexual conduct as "lawless," "an abomination," "vile," and "shameful." Id. at ¶¶ 155, 175 (citing and quoting Bible verses). Coral Ridge not only admits that "the Ministry has been vocal about its position on homosexuality because it believes the Bible speaks clearly about God's intent for marriage and sexuality," it also argues that "speaking out on these issues is necessary to fulfill the Ministry's stated purpose of ‘lovingly engag[ing] the culture with the heart and mind of Christ.’ " Pl.'s Resp. to SPLC's Mot. to Dismiss (doc. no. 51) at 10 (quoting Am. Compl. (doc. no. 40) at ¶ 34(d)).

SPLC is a nonprofit organization that, among a range of activities, disseminates a "Hate Map" that lists groups that it designates as "hate groups," including Coral Ridge. Id. at ¶¶ 20-21. SPLC's Hate Map is located on its website, and defines "hate groups" as groups that "have beliefs or practices that malign or attack an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." Id. at ¶ 59. SPLC has disseminated the Hate Map in fundraising efforts and in its reports, training programs, and other informational services. Id. at ¶¶ 120, 121, 132.

SPLC designated Coral Ridge as a hate group because of its espousal of biblical views concerning human sexuality and marriage--that is, because of its religious beliefs on those topics. Id. at ¶¶ 57-61; see also id. at ¶¶ 154-55.

Amazon is the largest internet-based retailer in the world by total sales and market capitalization. See id. at ¶ 5. AmazonSmile is a tax-exempt corporation affiliated with Amazon. See id. at ¶¶ 14, 41. Amazon and AmazonSmile operate the AmazonSmile program, whereby they donate 0.5 % of the price of a purchase made on smile.amazon.com to an eligible charitable organization selected by the customer. See id. at ¶¶ 42-43. The vast majority of the items available for purchase through Amazon are also available for purchase through the AmazonSmile program at smile.amazon.com. See id. at ¶ 15.

To be selected by a customer to receive donations through the AmazonSmile program, an entity must satisfy the program's eligibility requirements. See id. at ¶ 44. These requirements include, among others, that the entity is "a [ 26 U.S.C.] § 501(c)(3) ... public charitable organization" located in the United States. Id. Furthermore, the organization cannot "engage in, support, encourage, or promote intolerance, hate, terrorism, violence, money laundering, or other illegal activities." Id. Notably, "[e]ntities that are designated by [the] SPLC as hate groups are automatically ineligible" to receive donations through the AmazonSmile program. Id. at ¶ 23.

Coral Ridge alleges that it attempted to register to receive donations through the AmazonSmile program, see id. at ¶ 51, but that it was prohibited from doing so because SPLC had designated it as a "hate group," id. at ¶ 24, 53.

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Defamation Claim Against SPLC

Coral Ridge alleges that SPLC defamed it by designating it as a "hate group."²

Because "[a]t the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern ," Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. , 466 U.S. 485, 503–504, 104 S.Ct. 1949, 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984), a ‘public figure’ asserting a defamation claim must plausibly allege that the purported defamatory statement--here, the "Anti-LGBT hate group" designation³ --was (1) provable as false and (2) actually false, and (3) that SPLC made the statement with "actual malice," that is, "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."⁴...