Lindell v. Mail Media Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1:21-cv-667-PAC |
| Citation | 575 F.Supp.3d 479 |
| Parties | Michael LINDELL, Plaintiff, v. MAIL MEDIA INC. d/b/a Mail Online and Laura Collins, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Dilan A. Esper, Charles John Harder, Harder LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, for Plaintiff.
Jeremy Adam Chase, Robert D. Balin, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, New York, NY, Kelli L. Sager, Selina MacLaren, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant Mail Media, Inc.
Jeremy Adam Chase, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, New York, NY, Kelli L. Sager, Selina MacLaren, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant Laura Collins.
PAUL A. CROTTY, United States District Judge Michael Lindell sues Mail Media, Inc., and Laura Collins ("Defendants") for libel, alleging they published a false tabloid article about a romantic relationship between him and an actress. Defendants move to dismiss, arguing the Article's challenged statements—including claims that Lindell bought the actress alcohol—are not defamatory as a matter of law. Lindell opposes the motion and has simultaneously amended his complaint. Because the Court finds Lindell's Amended Complaint1 fails to identify any actionable statements from the Article, the Court GRANTS the Defendants’ motion and DISMISSES the Amended Complaint without prejudice.
The following factual allegations are taken from Lindell's Amended Complaint ("Am. Compl."), ECF No. 26. The Court presumes these allegations are true for purposes of this motion to dismiss. See Kelly v. Howard I. Shapiro & Assoc. Consulting Eng'rs , 716 F.3d 10, 12 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam).
Defendant Mail Media, Inc. ("MMI") is a Delaware corporation based in New York City. Am. Compl. ¶ 7. MMI publishes a tabloid news website, www.dailymail.com (the "Website").2 Id. The Website apparently attracts many millions of visitors every month. Id. The other defendant, Laura Collins, is the Website's Chief Investigative Reporter. Id. ¶ 8. She is likewise based in New York City. Id.
Plaintiff Michael Lindell lives in Minnesota. Am. Compl. ¶ 6. After a history of substance abuse, he "has been proudly, publicly clean and sober for over a decade." Id. ¶ 14(a). He "frequently writes and speaks publicly about his spiritual triumphs" over addiction. Id. ¶ 2. In approximately 2019, he founded the Lindell Recovery Network, which serves people battling addiction by connecting them with Christian-based recovery organizations. Id. ¶¶ 14(a), 24. The Recovery Network emphasizes Lindell's "personal story as a Christian who came back from his addiction to become a success." Id. ¶ 26. The Network has an online platform and "intends to affiliate with churches as religious treatment centers" as part of its mission. Id. ¶¶ 28–29.
At issue here is a tabloid article written about Lindell. On January 21, 2021, MMI posted the Article, which was attributed to Defendant Collins, on the Website. Am. Compl. ¶ 11; see also ECF No. 24-1, MacLaren Declaration, Exhibit A (the "Article"). The Article was titled: "EXCLUSIVE:
Trump-loving MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell had secret romance with 30 Rock actress Jane Krakowski and wooed her with flowers and champagne in relationship that BAFFLED her friends." Am. Compl. ¶ 11. As the title indicates, the Article claimed Lindell had secretly dated an actress, Jane Krakowski. Id. ¶ 12. The Article stated Lindell "wooed the actress for close to a year, showering her with gifts and flowers." Id. ¶ 13. It recounted how Lindell "sent flowers" to Krakowski "almost every week," as well as "champagne and bottles of different liquor." Id. The Article ended by saying Lindell was "shown the door" by Krakowski in the summer of 2020, possibly because Krakowski "didn't like the way [Lindell] treated women," although it does not provide any additional detail. Id. ¶¶ 12, 13.
The Article alluded to Lindell's rehabilitation story. One unnamed friend said Krakowski "was impressed that [Lindell] had turned his life around, from his recovery from crack cocaine and alcohol addiction
to now being sober and worth hundreds of millions of dollars." Article at 5. It also made one glancing reference to Lindell's faith—a "moment of Divine intervention" that helped him "achieve[ ] sobriety through prayer" after his addiction had cost him his marriage, his fortune, and his health. Id. The Article did not reference the Lindell Recovery Network at all.
According to the Amended Complaint, the Article was utterly false.
For one, the romance between Lindell and Krakowski never took place. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 3, 14. Before the Article was published, Lindell emailed the Defendants and told them he had never heard of Krakowski. Id. ¶¶ 3, 14(b), 17. Krakowski also denied having ever met Lindell. See Article at 1, 8. Both denials were printed in the Article's sub-headline and at the end of its text. See id.
On a more abstract level, Lindell claims the Article disparaged his moral character. See Am. Compl. ¶ 2. He maintains he is a recovering alcoholic who would never buy alcohol or "foist" it on other people, including Krakowski. Id. ¶ 14(a). To the contrary, Lindell is a Christian who "is piously devoted to his religious faith, his family, civic involvement and charity." Id. ¶ 14(c). Thus, he would never "engage in any sort of scandalous" or secret romantic relationship.3 Id.
As a result of the Article, Lindell asserts his reputation "in the field of addiction recovery as well as in religious communities" has been damaged. Am. Compl. ¶ 5. He also claims the Lindell Recovery Network "has only been able to associate with a handful of churches," and that an unnamed "Christian broadcaster" told the Recovery Network that "churches may be pulling out" because of the Article. Id. ¶ 30.
The Amended Complaint alleges Defendants knew (or should have known) Lindell had never met Krakowski, he would never buy alcohol for someone else, and he would never carry on a secret romance.4 Am. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 14, 15, 19. It also alleges the Defendants failed to contact other witnesses to verify the Article before publishing. Id. ¶ 17.
Lindell now brings a single claim of defamation against the Defendants. See Am. Compl. at 7–8. The Defendants move to dismiss the claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing primarily that the Article's statements are not defamatory as a matter of law. See generally ECF No. 22; ECF No. 23 ( ). Lindell filed a memorandum in opposition and, in the alternative, a "proposed" amended complaint. See ECF No. 25 ("Pl.’s Opp'n"). Defendants then filed a reply and a separate letter urging the Court to deny leave to amend the complaint. See ECF No. 28 ( ); ECF No. 30 ( ).
The Court first addresses the threshold issue of which version of Lindell's complaint is operative. A plaintiff may file an amended complaint even though a motion to dismiss the original complaint is pending. See Pettaway v. Nat'l Recovery Sols., LLC , 955 F.3d 299, 304 (2d Cir. 2020). Here, although both sides treat Lindell's Amended Complaint as a "proposed" one requiring the Court's permission to amend, Lindell may amend his pleading as a matter of right. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) permits a party to amend its complaint once as a matter of course within 21 days after service of a motion to dismiss. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on April 12, 2021; only 15 days later, on April 27, Lindell filed his Amended Complaint. Thus, the Court treats the Amended Complaint as timely and operative, having fully superseded the Original Complaint.
If an amended complaint is filed pending a motion to dismiss, the Court "has the option of either denying the pending motion as moot or evaluating the motion in light of the facts alleged in the amended complaint." Pettaway , 955 F.3d at 303–04. The Court here chooses the latter option, as the motion is fully briefed and addresses the same issues raised in the Amended Complaint.5 Accordingly, Lindell's Amended Complaint must withstand the same Rule 12(b)(6) scrutiny as his Original Complaint. See id.
To defeat a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ) (cleaned up). A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. While the court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor, the court is "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Papasan v. Allain , 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986). Thus, a pleading that offers only "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955.
In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court may consider the complaint's own content as well as extrinsic material that is "integral" to the complaint. Palin v. New York Times Co. , 940 F.3d 804, 811 (2d Cir. 2019). Although Lindell did not attach the Article to his pleadings, the Amended Complaint quotes extensively from the Article to provide the basis of his defamation claim. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 11–13, 17–18. Defendants submitted the full text of the Article; accordingly, the Court considers the Article's full text when evaluating the sufficiency of the Amended Complaint. See Ctr. for Med. Progress v. Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am. , No. 20 Civ. 7670 (CM), 551 F. Supp. 3d. 320,...
To continue reading
Request your trial