Greene v. Paramount Pictures Corp.

• Decision Date: 30 September 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14–CV–1044 (JS)(SIL).,14–CV–1044 (JS)(SIL).
• Parties: Andrew GREENE, Plaintiff, v. PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; Red Granite Pictures, Inc., a California corporation; Appian Way, LLC, a California limited liability company; Sikella Productions, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and John and Jane Does 1 Through 10, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

138 F.Supp.3d 226

Andrew GREENE, Plaintiff,

v.PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; Red Granite Pictures, Inc., a California corporation; Appian Way, LLC, a California limited liability company; Sikella Productions, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and John and Jane Does 1 Through 10, Defendants.

No. 14–CV–1044 (JS)(SIL).

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed Sept. 30, 2015.

Aaron M. Goldsmith, Esq., New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Louis P. Petrich, Esq., Vincent Cox, Esq., Leopold, Petrich & Smith P.C., Los Angeles, CA, for Paramount and Red Granite.

Katherine Mary Bolger, Esq., Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP, New York, NY, Rachel Fan Stern Strom, Esq., Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, New York, NY, for Paramount and Red Granite.

Katherine Mary Bolger, Esq., Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP, New York, NY, for Appian Way and Sikella.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

SEYBERT

, District Judge.

Plaintiff Andrew Greene ("Plaintiff") brings this diversity action against defendants Paramount Pictures Corporation, Red Granite Pictures, Inc., Appian Way, LLC, and Sikella Productions, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging that Defendants, the producers and distributors of the motion picture The Wolf of Wall Street, violated his right of privacy and defamed him under New York law through the portrayal of a character in the movie. Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

. (Docket Entry 12.) For the following reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

From 1993 to 1996, Plaintiff worked for Stratton Oakmont, Inc. ("Stratton Oakmont"), where he served on the Board of Directors and as the head of the Corporate Finance Department. (Compl. ¶ 18.) Stratton Oakmont was a notorious "over-the-counter" brokerage house based in Long Island, New York that stole millions of dollars from investors during the early 1990s through various "pump-and-dump" stock schemes. Jordan Belfort ("Belfort"), one of the firm's cofounders, was eventually arrested and served prison time for securities fraud and money laundering. Years later, he published a memoir chronicling the seven-year period during which he operated the firm and oversaw its securities fraud. Belfort's memoir later served as the basis for the motion picture The Wolf of Wall Street (the "Movie"), directed by Martin Scorcese and starring Leonardo DiCaprio.

Plaintiff regards the Movie as an invasion of his right of privacy and defamatory under New York law. He brings this action against Defendants, claiming that one of the characters in the movie, Nicky "Rugrat" Koskoff ("Koskoff" or the "Koskoff Character"), is an identifiable portrayal of him. Plaintiff alleges that Koskoff engages in a number of illegal and morally questionable acts and contends that people who have watched the Movie believe that Koskoff is a depiction of him, causing damage to his reputation. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and exemplary damages in excess of $50 million, as well an injunction prohibiting future dissemination of the Movie and an order directing Defendants to turn over to Plaintiff copies of the Movie and any advertisements that contain Plaintiff's alleged likeness.

Belfort's memoir, also titled The Wolf of Wall Street (the "Memoir"), was first published in 2007 and rereleased in paperback with a cover promoting its association with the Movie. The Memoir is told from Belfort's perspective and purports to be "a true story based on [Belfort's] best recollections of various events in his life." (Memoir at Author's Note.) It provides a lurid account of Belfort's rise and fall and a glimpse into the outlandish behavior that he claims occurred in his life and at Stratton Oakmont during the 1990s. This behavior included drug use and prostitution in the office.

Plaintiff is prominently featured in the Memoir. The Memoir identifies Plaintiff by his full name, Andrew Greene, and a nickname, "Wigwam," a reference to the toupee he wore at the time. (Memoir at 65.) Plaintiff is described as Stratton's lawyer and Belfort's "old and trusted friend," whose job was "to sift through dozens of business plans Stratton received each day and decide which, if any, were worth passing along to [Belfort]." (Memoir at 65.) Physically speaking, he is described as "frump[y]" and having a "prodigious potbelly," (Memoir at 65), and his toupee is mocked incessantly throughout the Memoir. For example, in the chapter introducing Plaintiff to the reader, Belfort describes Plaintiff's toupee as "the worst toupee this side of the Iron Curtain." (Memoir at 65.) The Memoir further describes Plaintiff as engaging in various types of illegal conduct related to Stratton Oakmont's securities fraud, which Plaintiff steadfastly denies.

Defendants released the Movie in December 2013. (Compl. ¶ 31.) As stated in the closing credits, the Movie purports to be "based on actual events"—i.e., the story told in the Memoir. For the most part, the Movie's screenplay does track the storyline of the Memoir. However, as the closing credits also explain, the Movie also contains some dramatic elements. While purporting to be "based on actual events," the closing credits also indicate that some of the events depicted are fictional and that some of the characters have fictional names or are composites of real-life individuals depicted in the Memoir. (See Movie, Closing Credits ("[C]ertain characters, characterizations, incidents, locations and dialogue were fictionalized or invented for purposes of dramatization.").) The closing credits further include a disclaimer that "[w]ith respect to such fictionalization or invention, any similarity to the name or to the actual character or history of any person ... or any product or entity or actual incident, is entirely for dramatic purposes and not intended to reflect on an actual character, history, product or entity." (Movie, Closing Credits.)

The Movie does not use Plaintiff's name, nor does it contain an actual image of Plaintiff. Rather, Plaintiff complains that "[his] likeness, image, and characterization is portrayed through the character Nicky ‘Rugrat’ Koskoff." (Compl. ¶ 20.) In support of this allegation, Plaintiff cites several similarities between him and the Koskoff Character that allegedly make Plaintiff's "identity ... readily apparent in the [Movie]." (Compl. ¶ 21.) For example, like Plaintiff, Koskoff is also "one of Jordan Belfort's close friends" who went to law school and later moves into "a significant leadership position at Stratton Oakmont upon Jordan Belfort's resignation from [Stratton Oakmont]." (Compl. ¶¶ 22–25). Koskoff also wears a toupee, which is the subject of constant ridicule, and he has a similarly punned nickname, "Rugrat." (See Compl. ¶¶ 27–29.) Nonetheless, there are some differences between the Koskoff Character, on the one hand, and Plaintiff in real life and how he is depicted in the Memoir, on the other. For example, in the Movie, Belfort hires Koskoff as a broker when Stratton Oakmont opens in the late 1980s, while in real life, Plaintiff started at Stratton Oakmont in 1993 and was not a broker. In the Memoir, Gary Kaminsky ("Kaminsky"), the Chief Financial Officer of a company in which Belfort illegally held stock, arranges a meeting between Belfort and a Swiss banker who launders money for Belfort. (Memoir at 121.) Kaminsky and the Swiss banker are later arrested for money laundering in Miami, Florida. (Memoir at 338–39.) In the Movie, it is the Koskoff Character who arranges the meeting and is later arrested with the Swiss banker in Miami.

According to Plaintiff, the Movie is defamatory because it portrays the Koskoff Character "as a criminal, drug user, degenerate, depraved, and/or devoid of any morality or ethics." (Compl. ¶ 30.) Plaintiff points to the following scenes in particular. (Compl. ¶ 30.) In one scene, Koskoff is depicted shaving a female sales assistant's head who agreed to have her head shaved at the front of Stratton Oakmont's boardroom in exchange for $10,000, which she would use to pay for breast augmentation surgery. In the Memoir, Belfort claims that this incident occurred, but he does not implicate Plaintiff as actually performing the haircut. (Memoir at 104.) Plaintiff also points to the scenes where Koskoff accompanies Belfort to the meeting with the Swiss banker and is later arrested for money laundering. Plaintiff further alleges that Koskoff is depicted "in a reckless and depraved manner" in other scenes of the Movie, including scenes where he is engaged in drug use and sexual relations with prostitutes at work. (Compl. ¶ 30.)

After the Movie was released, Plaintiff commenced this action, alleging that the portrayal of the Koskoff Character is libelous and violates his right of privacy under New York law. The Complaint contains five causes of action, which do not have substantive labels. The Court reads the first and second causes of action to assert an invasion of Plaintiff's right of privacy under New York Civil Rights Law § 51

, (Compl. ¶¶ 15–53)¹ ; the Court reads the third cause of action to assert an invasion of Plaintiff's right of privacy under New York common law, (Compl. ¶¶ 54–56)² ; and the fourth and fifth causes of action are in libel per se, (Compl. ¶¶ 57–66). Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

. (Docket Entry 12.) This motion is fully briefed and currently pending before the Court.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6)

motion to dismiss, the Court applies a "plausibility standard," which is guided by "[t]wo working principles." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ; accord Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 71–72 (2d Cir.2009). First, although the Court must accept all allegations as true, this "tenet" is "inapplicable to legal conclusions;" thus, "[t]hreadbare recitals of...