Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Harrods, Ltd.
| Citation | 237 F.Supp.2d 394 |
| Decision Date | 11 October 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 02 Civ. 3979(VM).,02 Civ. 3979(VM). |
| Parties | DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. HARRODS, LIMITED and Mohamed Al Fayed, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Jack M. Weiss, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, L.L.P., New York City, for Plaintiff.
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Dow Jones & Company, Inc. ("Dow Jones") brought this action against defendants Harrods, Limited ("Harrods") and Mohamed Al Fayed ("Al Fayed") requesting a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Dow Jones seeks to preclude Harrods and Al Fayed from pursuing claims for defamation asserted in a lawsuit Harrods commenced against Dow Jones in the United Kingdom arising from the publication of an article in The Wall Street Journal (the "Journal") in April of this year. Now before the Court is a motion by Harrods and Al Fayed, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(2), to dismiss the complaint. At issue is whether the federal Declaratory Judgment Act (the "DJA") may be applied for the purpose of the judgment Dow Jones seeks, or whether, assuming the DJA were properly invoked, based on the facts presented here the Court should exercise its discretion under the DJA to grant or deny declaratory relief. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is granted.
To the question "What is in a joke?", this lawsuit gives a decidedly wooden answer: a federal case.1 Beyond the purported humor that gave rise to the conflict, however, lie several serious questions entailing federal statutory and constitutional law, as well as issues of weighty international dimensions.
The action began with an April Fool's joke. Harrods, which, among various other commercial enterprises, operates the well-known department store of that name in London, England, issued a press release on March 31, 2002, headlined "Al Fayed Reveals Plan to `Float' Harrods." The release stated that Al Fayed, Harrods' Chairman and effective owner, would issue on the following day an important announcement "about his future plans for the world-famous store," including "a first-come-first-served share option offer."2 Journalists seeking further comment were directed to contact "Loof Lirpa" at Harrods. In fact, "Loof Lirpa" is "April Fool" spelled backward. On April 1, 2002, the planned announcement posted on the designated website described Al Fayed's decision to "float" Harrods by building a ship version of the store to be moored in London on the embankment of the Thames River. The announcement included a limited offer of "shares in this exciting new venture." Persons who registered on the website by noon that day, "the first of April!", were promised "a share certificate."3
Dow Jones read the March 31 press release as purporting to announce that Harrods planned to "float shares," i.e., a public offering of stock. It did not wait to see Harrods' actual disclosure on the announcement date. Instead, on April 1, in the print editions of the Journal in the United States, and in the Journal's website "WSJ.com.," Dow Jones published an article reporting that Harrods would disclose plans that day to publicly list the company's shares.4
Upon learning that Harrods' announcement had been an April Fool's joke, the Journal published a correction so advising its readers in an item that appeared in its April 2, 2002 print editions in the United States as well as on WSJ.com. Three days later, Dow Jones countered with a story it asserts was intended as the Journal's own brand of wry, light-hearted humor, the article that ultimately catapulted into the conflict now before this Court. The Journal's "Deals & Deal Makers: Bids & Offers" column on April 5, 2002 published an item entitled "The Enron of Britain?" (the "April 5 Article").5 The first sentence of the April 5 Article, which appeared in the Journal's United States print edition and on WSJ.com., states that: "If Harrods, the British luxury retailer, ever goes public, investors would be wise to question its every disclosure." It then detailed the April Fool's joke, which the story reported had been mistaken by "some news organizations" as an announcement of a plan to sell Harrods shares publicly. Dubbing the prank "[n]ot exactly Monty Python-level stuff," the column questioned whether Harrods could "get in trouble for messing with the facts?" by issuing the bogus press announcement.
At this point the lawyers entered. Promptly the face of comedy began to furrow and its smile to curl into what often becomes tragedy's first sour frowns and snarls: incipient litigation. As the lawyers recount the tale, Harrods apparently did not see any humor in the article, and rather took umbrage from the Journal's reference to it and Enron in the same breath. On April 10, 2002, Harrods' director of legal affairs wrote to Dow Jones officials asserting that the April 5 Article had enraged Harrods and "caused serious damage to Harrods' reputation worldwide" by "linking Harrods (a law abiding and historic British institution) with Enron" and thereby insinuating that Harrods "can and will act unlawfully."6 The letter demanded that the Journal publish a correction and an apology in its domestic and international editions and pay Harrods "substantial damages."7 It also explained that Harrods' April Fools Day jest followed a long-standing tradition practiced in Britain by other prominent businesses that issued similar humorous press releases.8
Attorneys for the two sides then exchanged numerous letters and communications articulating the parties' respective positions. On April 15, 2002, Dow Jones responded to Harrods' letter, denying that the April 5 Article was defamatory and asserting Dow Jones' view that the item was intended as humorous commentary, that the mention of Enron merely reflected "tongue-in-cheek hyperbole," and that because there was nothing inaccurate in the report there was nothing that needed correction.9 Dow Jones suggested that Harrods submit a letter to the Journal's editor for publication.10
Harrods replied on Arpil 18, 2002. It rejected Dow Jones' contention that the April 5 Article was meant to be humorous as "simply an incredible, if not bizarre, assertion," and reiterated Harrods' demand for a published apology, warning of Harrods' intent to commence a defamation suit in the United Kingdom if Dow Jones failed to satisfy Harrods' demands.11 Dow Jones replied on April 19, 2002. It asserted that the April 5 Article contained only non-actionable opinion grounded on disclosed which could not serve as grounds for a defamation action, and repeated Dow Jones' willingness to publish a letter to the editor if Harrods submitted one.12
Dow Jones next heard from Harrods' London solicitors on May 13, 2002. The correspondence informed Dow Jones that in preparation for filing a defamation suit in the United Kingdom, Harrods requested Dow Jones to provide certain "pre-action disclosure" concerning the circulation of the Journal's United States edition in the United Kingdom, the number of subscribers to its online edition in the United Kingdom and worldwide and the number of "hits" received on WSJ.com since April 5, 2002. The letter fixed a date of May 27, 2002 for disclosure of the requested information, after which Harrods would bring the matter to the appropriate court in London.13
Dow Jones construed the demand from Harrods' solicitors for pre-action disclosures as a threat and prelude to litigation.14 Dow Jones did not respond...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Almakalani v. McAleenan
...have drawn to a close." Id. The Declaratory Judgment Act is not a "source of substantive rights." Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrods, Ltd. , 237 F. Supp. 2d 394, 431 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). "Nor does the statute impose any duty upon the courts to grant this remedy." Ahmed v. Cissna , 327 F. Supp. 3d 650, ......
-
Doe v. Knights of Columbus
...real and immediate, allowing specific and conclusive relief . . . and be ripe for adjudication." Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Harrods Ltd., 237 F.Supp.2d 394, 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (citing Pub. Serv. Cmm'n v. Wycoff Co., Inc., 344 U.S. 237, 244 (1952)), aff'd, 346 F.3d 357 (2d Cir. 2003); accord ......
-
A.P. Moller-Maersk a/S v. Ocean Express Miami
...assertions, even if true, are insufficient to demonstrate a risk of "competing adjudicatory power." See Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Harrods, Ltd., 237 F.Supp.2d 394, 415 (S.D.N.Y.2002). Quality Print also asserts that the claims in the SAC and the claims pending in Panama arise from the same s......
-
U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Kum Gang, Inc., 04-CV-2671 (ILG).
...real and immediate, allowing specific and conclusive relief .. . it must also be ripe for adjudication." Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Harrods Ltd., 237 F.Supp.2d 394, 406 (citing Pub. Serv. Cmm'n v. Wycoff Co., Inc., 344 U.S. 237, 244, 73 S.Ct. 236, 97 L.Ed. 291 (1952)). Importantly, "[Ole disa......
-
Legislating the Tower of Babel: international restrictions on Internet content and the marketplace of ideas.
...of differing international standards for libel arises in a couple of recent cases. See Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Harrods, Ltd., 237 F. Supp. 2d 394, 402-03 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); Ellis v. Time Inc., 26 Media L. Rep. 1225, 1234-35 (D.D.C. (14.) Maryann McMahon, Defamation Claims in Europe: A Su......