Oakley v. Dolan

• Decision Date: 19 February 2020
• Docket Number: No. 17-cv-6903 (RJS),17-cv-6903 (RJS)
• Parties: CHARLES OAKLEY, Plaintiff, v. JAMES DOLAN ET AL., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

CHARLES OAKLEY, Plaintiff, v. JAMES DOLAN ET AL., Defendants.

No. 17-cv-6903 (RJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

February 19, 2020

OPINION AND ORDER

RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff Charles Oakley brings this action against MSG Networks, Inc., The Madison Square Garden Company, and MSG Sports & Entertainment, LLC (collectively, the "MSG Defendants"), and James Dolan, alleging claims for defamation, assault, battery, false imprisonment, abuse of process, and denial of a public accommodation in violation of New York state law, and denial of a public accommodation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) ("ADA"). Now before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts¹

As any basketball fan knows, Oakley is a former NBA All-Star power forward who played for the New York Knicks from 1988 to 1998. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 6, 14, 15.) Dolanis the Executive Chairman of the MSG Defendants, which own and operate Madison Square Garden ("the Garden") and the Knicks. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 7-10.) Although Oakley asserts that he never met Dolan until long after his playing days had ended, he alleges that Dolan harbored animosity toward him, "constantly disrespect[ing] [him]" and "even having security harass him" "[w]ithout any justification" when he attended Knicks games. (Id. ¶ 2; see also id. ¶¶ 23, 26-28.)

Things came to a head on February 8, 2017, when Oakley attended a Knicks game at the Garden against the Los Angeles Clippers. (Id. ¶ 30.) Oakley insists that he was "neither intoxicated nor otherwise behaving inappropriately" when he arrived at the Garden (id. ¶ 31), and that he took his seat, "coincidentally" located several rows behind where Dolan was sitting, without fanfare (id. ¶ 32). However, a few minutes after Oakley sat down, three men identifying themselves as members of the Garden's security team approached him and asked him to leave the arena. (Id. ¶ 34.) Oakley claims he asked the guards why he was being asked to leave, only to have one of the guards respond: "Why are you sitting so close to Mr. Dolan?" (Id. ¶ 35.)

Oakley acknowledges that he did not immediately comply with the guards' request, instead attempting to explain that "he had done nothing wrong and simply wanted to watch the game in peace." (Id. ¶ 37.) He then "turn[ed] around" and "return[ed] to his seat." (Id. ¶ 40.) As he did so, two of the guards grabbed him, pushed him to the ground, and demanded that he leave the Garden "immediately." (Id. ¶¶ 42, 44.) Once back on his feet, Oakley continued to ask why he was being ejected from the Garden, at which point the guards again attempted to force him from the arena. (Id. ¶ 45.) Oakley responded by "push[ing] their hands away," whereupon six guards grabbed him and threw him to the ground. (Id. ¶¶ 46-47.) The guards then restrained him, escorted him out of the Garden, and delivered him to police officers, who arrested him and charged him with assault. (Id. ¶¶ 49, 51, 123.)

Following the February 8 incident, Defendants made a series of statements that Oakley alleges were defamatory. First, on the night of the incident, the Knicks public relations Twitter account, @NY_KnicksPR, which is owned and operated by Defendants, tweeted that Oakley:

behaved in a highly inappropriate and completely abusive manner. He has been ejected and is currently being arrested by the New York City Police Department. He was a great Knick and we hope he gets some help soon.

(Id. ¶ 58.) Second, on February 9, @NY_KnicksPR tweeted:

There are dozens of security staff, employees and NYPD that witnessed Oakley's abusive behavior. It started when he entered the building and continued until he was arrested and left the building. Every single statement we have received is consistent in describing his actions. Everything he said since the incident is pure fiction.

(Id. ¶ 62.)

Third, on February 10, Dolan appeared on ESPN Radio's The Michael Kay Show and made a number of statements about Oakley and the February 8 incident, including the following:

• "I think the most important thing with that is that we need to keepthe Garden a place that's comfortable and safe for everybody who goes there. So anybody who comes to the Garden, whether they've been drinking too much alcohol, they're looking for a fight, they're abusive, disrespectful to the staff and the fans, they're going to be ejected and they're going to be banned."²

• "To me, I think that Charles has got a problem. I've said this before, we've said it before. We said it one time that he's his own worst problem. He has a problem. People need to sort of understand that. He has a problem with anger. He's both physically and verbally abusive. He may have a problem with alcohol, we don't know, right."

• "We know that he talked about on TV that he was drinking beforehand. We've heard statements from some of the police and security that he appeared to be impaired, et cetera. Yes, they clearly, our staff . . . could see that."

• "When you have issues like this, the first step for anybody is to ask for help."

• "The No. 1 concern always has to be the safety and the comfort of the fans."

• "We'll probably hear chants tonight in support of Mr. Oakley, but I would like . . . those same people to look around and look at the people who are working at Madison Square Garden, and understand that the person that they're chanting for may have been a great Knick player, but he was terribly abusive to those same people who are there to help them."

• "There were security people there who were abused. There were service people there who were abused. The same people that the fans who come to the game tonight, who are going to help those fans find their seats, get them food, try and make them comfortable, they were abused. And abused not - in a really horrible, angry, nasty way. With racially - with racial overtones, sexual overtones. The stuff you never ever want to hear. How do you bring your kids to a game if you think that's going to happen?"

• "It's very clear to us that Charles Oakley came to the Garden with an agenda, with a mission in mind and from the moment he stepped into the Garden, and I mean the moment he walked through the first set of doors, he began with this behavior. Abusive behavior, disrespectful behavior. Stuff that I don't think you . . . want to say on the radio. . . . And it just accelerated and accelerated and accelerated, all the way down to his seats, and then ultimately with a confrontation with security, andeventually ending up with his being ejected and arrested. . . . I mean I'm not inside of Charles Oakley's mind. He did say a bunch of things along the way that looked like he was headed in my direction. I didn't hear them myself but we heard from our employees et cetera that he was using my name a lot. But this isn't because I'm nervous. This is because you can't do what he did and stay. We clearly did not - we weren't perfect here, and I think that Charles never should have made it to his seats. That's on us. We're doing things to remedy that. To make sure that doesn't happen again with anybody."

(Id. ¶¶ 68-73; Dolan Interview.)

B. Procedural History

On September 12, 2017, Oakley filed the original Complaint in this action against Dolan and the MSG Defendants, asserting New York state law claims of defamation - including defamation per se, libel, and slander - assault, battery, false imprisonment, abuse of process, and denial of a public accommodation in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law (N.Y. Exec. L. § 290 et seq.) ("NYSHRL") and the New York City Human Rights Law (N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq.) ("NYCHRL"). He also alleged a federal claim of denial of public accommodation in violation of the ADA.³ (Doc. No. 1.) The Court held a conference on January 12, 2018 to discuss Defendants' contemplated motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 51 Ex. 1.) In light of the discussions at that conference and Oakley's voluntary withdrawal of his NYCHRL claim, Oakley filed an Amended Complaint on February 9, 2018 that included an additional claim for defamation per quod but was otherwise substantially similar to the original Complaint. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 94-148.)

On March 5, 2018, the Court granted Defendants' request to stay discovery pending the disposition of Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 38.) Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on March 30, 2018, asserting that Oakley had failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 41.) Oakley filed his opposition brief on May 24, 2018 (Doc. No. 50), and Defendants filed their reply brief on June 11, 2018 (Doc. No. 54). Oakley thereafter submitted a series of letters to the Court - on March 13, 2019 (Doc. No. 56), July 29, 2019 (Doc. No. 58), and November 15, 2019 (Doc. No. 63) - setting forth additional authorities and facts in opposition to the motion to dismiss. Defendants responded to each letter with submissions of their own on March 13, 2019 (Doc. No. 57), July 30, 2019 (Doc. No. 59), and November 18, 2019 (Doc. No. 64). In September 2019 and January 2020, Oakley also requested that the Court lift the discovery stay in this matter (Doc. Nos. 61, 65), which the Court denied (Doc. Nos. 62, 67).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

To withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must "provide the grounds upon which [the] claim rests." ATSI Commc'ns, 493 F.3d at 98; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ("A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . ashort and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ."). To meet this standard, a plaintiff must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its...