El Omari v. Buchanan
| Decision Date | 10 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | 20 Civ. 2601 (VM) |
| Parties | OUSSAMA EL OMARI, Plaintiff, v. JAMES E. D. BUCHANAN, DECHERT LLP, ANDREW D. FRANK, a/k/a ANDREW D. SOLOMON, NEIL GERRARD, AMIR ALI HANDJANI, a/k/a AMIRALI HANDJANI, KARV COMMUNICATIONS, INC., INTELLIGENCE ONLINE, and LONGVIEW PARTNERS GUERNSEY LTD., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
OUSSAMA EL OMARI, Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES E. D. BUCHANAN, DECHERT LLP, ANDREW D. FRANK, a/k/a ANDREW D. SOLOMON, NEIL GERRARD, AMIR ALI HANDJANI, a/k/a AMIRALI HANDJANI, KARV COMMUNICATIONS, INC., INTELLIGENCE ONLINE, and LONGVIEW PARTNERS GUERNSEY LTD., Defendants.
No. 20 Civ. 2601 (VM)
United States District Court, S.D. New York
December 10, 2021
DECISION AND ORDER
VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Oussama El Omari (“El Omari”) brings this action alleging violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), prima facie tort, defamation per se, and a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”). (See “Amended Complaint” or “AC, ” Dkt. No. 31.) Defendants James E. D. Buchanan (“Buchanan”), Dechert LLP (“Dechert”), Andrew D. Frank, a/k/a Andrew D. Solomon (“Frank”), Neil Gerrard (“Gerrard”), Amir Ali Handjani, a/k/a Amirali Handjani (“Handjani”), KARV Communications, Inc. (“KARV”), and Longview Partners (Guernsey) Ltd. (“Longview, ” and with the foregoing defendants, “Defendants”), move to dismiss the Amended
Complaint. (See “Mot.” Dkt. No. 82.) For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
A. FACTS[1]
From 1997 to 2012, El Omari was a Director and CEO of the Ras Al Khaimah Free Trade Zone Authority (“RAKFTZA”). RAKFTZA is an agency or instrumentality of the Emirate of Ras Al Khaimah (“RAK”), one of seven emirates composing the United Arab Emirates. During most of his tenure at RAKFTZA, El Omari reported directly to Sheikh Faisal Bin Saqr Al Qasimi (“Sheikh Faisal”), who was the Chairman of RAKFTZA. In 2010, Sheikh Faisal's brother Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi (“Sheikh Saud”) became the Ruler of RAK.
After he became the Ruler of RAK, Sheikh Saud allegedly solicited El Omari's political allegiance and asked him to no longer speak with Sheikh Faisal. Sheikh Saud later fired El Omari and several other RAKFTZA executives for refusing to pledge their allegiance. Sometime after, RAK filed criminal charges against El Omari relating to business projects he worked on with Sheikh Faisal. El Omari was eventually
convicted in absentia and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. El Omari alleges that the Defendants then engaged in a scheme to defame him and to deceive him into divulging confidential information.
1. KARV FARA Disclosures
In 2013, Frank founded KARV, a New York public relations company. Handjani (together with Frank, the “KARV Defendants”) has been employed at KARV as a senior advisor since its founding. When KARV was established, the KARV Defendants filed several disclosures with the Department of Justice, pursuant to the Foreign Agent Registration Act (“FARA”), 22 U.S.C. § 612 et seq. The KARV Defendants disclosed that they began providing public relations services to RAK Maritime City and that KARV was paid by RAK.
El Omari alleges that, from 2013 to 2019, the KARV Defendants filed materially misleading FARA disclosures. The Amended Complaint states that these FARA disclosures suffered from the following three defects: (1) mispresenting the scope of KARV's engagement by RAK; (2) failing to include the true and complete terms of KARV's agreement with RAK; and (3) mispresenting that KARV's activities were not political. At bottom, the Amended Complaint alleges that these FARA disclosures misrepresented the public relations work that the KARV Defendants provided to RAK because the disclosures did
not reveal that the KARV Defendants were engaged in a scheme to defame El Omari. This alleged scheme, which El Omari calls the “propaganda racket, ” involved the alleged acts and statements described below.
2. Cooperation with the CIA
El Omari alleges that in 2011, the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) asked him to provide it with documents and information relating to Iranian companies registered with RAKFTZA and business partners of entities affiliated with Sheikh Saud. With help from a legal advisor to RAKFTZA, El Omari compiled the requested documents and information, and thereafter provided them to the CIA. The KARV Defendants allegedly utilized the defamation scheme to retaliate against El Omari for his cooperation with the CIA.
3. 2018 London Meeting
From 2001 to 2014, Buchanan was employed by Longview, an asset management company based in St. Peter Port, Guernsey. Since 2014, Buchanan has been a Longview shareholder and member of its board of directors. El Omari alleges that Longview manages RAK state assets and that Buchanan takes orders directly from RAK.
In October 2018, Buchanan met with a human rights activist named Radha Stirling (“Stirling”) in London, United Kingdom. During the meeting, Buchanan allegedly stated he was
affiliated with the Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority (“RAKIA”) and that he was in London on behalf of Sheikh Saud. El Omari alleges that Buchanan made three additional statements that constitute defamation and prima facie tort. First, Buchannan stated: “I came in 2014 to clean up the mess of [Sheikh] Faisal and Oussama [El Omari]. We know how to control the judges. Now we are after him and are going to report him to the IRS.” (AC ¶¶ 16, 129.) Second, Buchanan told Stirling, “I'm going to bring [El Omari] down.” (Id.) Third, Buchanan called El Omari a “human trafficker.” (Id.)
Based on Buchanan's alleged threat to “bring him down, ” El Omari alleges that Longview and Buchanan made unspecified allegations to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), and other law enforcement agencies. El Omari particularly asserts that, because of these unspecified allegation, two DHS agents visited him at home in North Carolina on May 28, 2019. The DHS agents asked him about Sheikh Faisal, including El Omari's previous work in New York on behalf of Sheikh Faisal.
4. 2019 Intelligence Online Article
On April 8, 2019, Intelligence Online, a trade newsletter based in France, published an article titled, “The Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority trails French connection
to recover its lost funds” (“IO Article”).[2] (AC ¶ 11.) The IO Article stated that “[RAKIA] is on a vast worldwide hunt to recover arrears reportedly embezzled by its former senior officials, Kather Massaad and Oussama El Omari.” (Id. ¶ 19(a); “AC Ex. 1, ” Dkt. No. 31-1 at 1.) The IO Article also stated: “The investment authority believes that Massaad and his former alley [sic] Oussama El Omari, who previously oversaw [RAKFTZA], misappropriated as much as $1.5 billion in overpayments.” (AC ¶ 19(b); AC Ex. 1 at 1.) El Omari also alleges that several phrases in the IO Article falsely connected him with Massaad.
5. Deceptive News Reporter
On February 5, 2020, someone named Samantha Alison
(“Alison”) emailed El Omari and stated she was a journalist at Fox News in New York. El Omari and Alison communicated via email, telephone, and Skype for several weeks after this initial email. In total, they exchanged thirteen emails and five Skype calls. During their conversations, El Omari provided Alison with the contact information for five individuals and a copy of a confidential letter from El
Omari's counsel to DHS. On or around April 20, 2020, El Omari discovered that Alison was an imposter and used a fake email address to contact him in the first instance. El Omari alleges that, through the exchange of emails and calls alone, Alison accessed his computer. El Omari also alleges that Alison was Defendants' agent.
B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 27, 2020, El Omari initiated this action by filing the original Complaint. A few weeks later, on May 5, 2020, El Omari filed the Amended Complaint. Consistent with the Court's Individual Practices, Defendants informed El Omari of purported deficiencies in the Amended Complaint by pre-motion letters. El Omari responded to each letter, challenging the asserted grounds for dismissal. (See Dkt. No. 79-2.) After reviewing the pre-motion letters and identifying overlapping arguments, the Court directed the parties to file a consolidated brief that addressed common arguments among Defendants. (See Dkt. No. 80.) Defendants thereafter submitted a consolidated Motion, (see “Mot., ” Dkt. 82), and El Omari filed his Opposition, (See “Opp'n, ” Dkt. 84).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
To survive a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A complaint satisfies this standard when it contains sufficient “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. A complaint should be dismissed if the plaintiff has not offered factual allegations sufficient to render the claims facially plausible. See id. However, if the factual allegations sufficiently “raise a right to relief above the speculative level, ” then a court should not dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
In resolving a motion to dismiss, the Court's task is to “assess the legal feasibility of the complaint, not . . . the weight of the evidence which might be offered in support thereof.” In re Columbia Pipeline, Inc., 405 F.Supp.3d 494, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Eternity Glob. Master Fund ltd. v. Morgan Guar. Tr. Co. of N.Y., 375 F.3d 168, 176 (2d Cir. 2004)). In this context, the Court must draw reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See id. However, the requirement that a court accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true does not extend to legal conclusions. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In other words, a court must “accept as true all factual allegations and draw from them
all reasonable inferences;...
To continue reading
Request your trial