Sindi v. El-Moslimany

Decision Date11 July 2018
Docket NumberNo. 16-2347,16-2347
Parties Hayat SINDI, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Samia EL-MOSLIMANY and Ann El-Moslimany, Defendants, Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

896 F.3d 1

Hayat SINDI, Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
Samia EL-MOSLIMANY and Ann El-Moslimany, Defendants, Appellants.

No. 16-2347

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

July 11, 2018


John A. Kiernan, with whom Bonner Kiernan Trebach & Crociata, LLP was on brief, Boston, MA, for appellants.

Eugene Volokh, pro se, on brief for Eugene Volokh, amicus curiae.

David H. Rich, with whom Suzanne Elovecky and Todd & Weld LLP were on brief, Boston, MA, for appellee.

Before Barron, Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.

SELYA, Circuit Judge.

896 F.3d 11

This case implicates a plethora of issues arising in the shadow of the First Amendment. Most notably, it requires us to address the power of a court to impose a prior restraint in the form of a permanent injunction forbidding the publication of words—words that the court believes have been used to defame the plaintiff in the past and are likely to be repeated. The case also presents issues as to whether, consistent with the First Amendment and state law, the evidence adduced at trial allowed the jury to find defendant-appellant Samia El-Moslimany (Samia) liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress and to find Samia and her mother, defendant-appellant Ann El-Moslimany (Ann), liable for defamation, tortious interference with contract, and tortious interference with advantageous relations. Finally, it presents issues as to whether the damages awarded on these claims, totaling in the millions of dollars, are excessive.

After careful consideration, we conclude that the district court's permanent injunction cannot survive the strict scrutiny that the Constitution demands for prior restraints on speech. Thus, we vacate the injunction. We affirm the jury's findings of liability on most (but not all) of Dr. Sindi's tort claims and affirm the corresponding money judgments (some that represent the jury's assessment of damages and some that represent the district court's remittitur of jury awards). Not so the claim for tortious interference with advantageous relations: finding the evidence insufficient, we vacate the jury awards on that claim and direct the entry of judgment for the appellants.

I.

We offer only a sketch of the relevant events and travel of the case, reserving a fuller elaboration for our discussion of specific issues. For these purposes, we take the facts in the light most hospitable to the jury verdict, consistent with record support. See Casillas-Díaz v. Palau, 463 F.3d 77, 79 (1st Cir. 2006).

In November of 2010, Samia and her husband, Fouad Dehlawi, hosted a Thanksgiving dinner at their Seattle-area home. Their guest list included the plaintiff, Dr. Hayat Sindi, a prominent Saudi scientist and entrepreneur who was then a visiting scholar at Harvard University. Several months later, Samia came to believe that her husband and Dr. Sindi were engaged in a meretricious relationship. For the next five years, Samia and Ann published a series of web posts pertaining to Dr. Sindi in a variety of forums, including Amazon.com, Facebook, the Washington Post website, and various blogs. They also sent e-mails regarding Dr. Sindi to members of the scientific community and to investors in Dr. Sindi's Institute for Imagination and Ingenuity (i2 Institute). Among other calumnies, the appellants accused Dr. Sindi of fraudulently obtaining her doctorate by paying a colleague to ghostwrite her dissertation, repeatedly lying about her age in order to obtain awards meant for younger scientists, and inflating her resumé by falsely touting her role in Harvard's Diagnostics for All initiative.

Dr. Sindi did not take this campaign of vilification lightly. On January 25, 2013, she sued Samia and Ann in a Massachusetts state court. Her complaint alleged defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with contract, and tortious interference with advantageous relations. Citing diversity of citizenship and the existence of a controversy in the requisite amount, Samia and

896 F.3d 12

Ann removed the case to the federal district court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1441(a). Following some pretrial skirmishing (not relevant here) and extensive discovery, the case went to trial on July 11, 2016.

The trial lasted seven days (exclusive of jury deliberations). At the close of all the evidence, the district court denied the appellants' motion for judgment as a matter of law, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a), and sent the case to the jury. In the course of its jury instructions, the court encouraged the jurors to consult a nine-page document (referred to as a "chalk"), which listed approximately 132 allegedly defamatory statements attributed to Samia and/or Ann.1 Neither Samia nor Ann objected to this portion of the instructions.

The jury returned a general verdict in Dr. Sindi's favor on all but one of the submitted claims. It found Samia liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress; absolved Ann of that charge; and found both Samia and Ann liable for defamation, tortious interference with contract, and tortious interference with advantageous relations. The jury awarded damages totaling $3,500,000.2

The jury verdict generated a flurry of post-trial activity. Samia and Ann renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), and moved alternatively for either a new trial or a remittitur, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a), (e). For her part, Dr. Sindi moved for a permanent injunction, seeking to enjoin Samia and Ann from uttering or otherwise publishing a multitude of described statements. On August 18, 2016, the district court granted Dr. Sindi's motion and enjoined the appellants from publishing "orally, in writing, through direct electronic communications, or by directing others to websites or blogs reprinting" six statements that the district court concluded were defamatory.

Some six weeks later, the district court denied the appellants' motion for judgment as a matter of law. At the same time, the court denied their alternative motion for a new trial or a remittitur, with two exceptions. First, the court granted a remittitur of the damages awarded against Samia for tortious interference with contract (directing Dr. Sindi to remit all of the $2,000,000 verdict on that claim in excess of $576,000). See Sindi v. El-Moslimany, No. 13-cv-10798, 2016 WL 5867403, at *6 (D. Mass. Oct. 6, 2016). Second, it granted a remittitur of the damages awarded against Ann for tortious interference with contract (directing Dr. Sindi to remit all of the $400,000 verdict on that claim in excess of $144,000).See id. The court proceeded to enter an amended final judgment, which included prejudgment interest, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 6B, costs, and the permanent injunction.3

This timely appeal ensued. Following oral argument, we directed the parties to submit supplemental briefs designed to answer

896 F.3d 13

certain questions affecting the validity vel non of the permanent injunction. We have received those supplemental briefs, along with a thoughtful amicus brief, and the appeal is now ripe for decision.

II.

We review the district court's denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo. See Trainor v. HEI Hosp., LLC, 699 F.3d 19, 26 (1st Cir. 2012). In conducting this tamisage, we examine the record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and will reverse "only if reasonable persons could not have reached the conclusion that the jury embraced." Sanchez v. P.R. Oil Co., 37 F.3d 712, 716 (1st Cir. 1994).

Our review of the district court's denial of a motion for a new trial under Rule 59"is even more circumscribed." Id. at 717. A trial court may "set aside a jury's verdict and order a new trial only if the verdict is against the demonstrable weight of the credible evidence or results in a blatant miscarriage of justice." Id. When a movant attacks an award of damages as excessive, a court may remit the award only if "the award exceeds any rational appraisal or estimate of the damages that could be based upon the evidence before it." Trainor, 699 F.3d at 29 (quoting Wortley v. Camplin, 333 F.3d 284, 297 (1st Cir. 2003) ). We review the district court's adjudication of a motion for either a new trial or a remittitur for abuse of discretion. See id.; Sanchez, 37 F.3d at 717.

Since this case comes to us by means of our diversity jurisdiction, we must look to state law for the substantive rules of decision. See Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938) ; Sanders v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 843 F.3d 37, 42 (1st Cir. 2016). In this instance, we—like the court below—follow the parties' lead and look to the substantive law of Massachusetts. See Shay v. Walters, 702 F.3d 76, 80 (1st Cir. 2012).

III.

We begin our analysis with the defamation claims. In Massachusetts, a defamation plaintiff must establish that "[t]he defendant made a statement, concerning the plaintiff, to a third party"; that such "statement could damage the plaintiff's reputation in the community"; that "[t]he defendant was at fault in making the statement"; and that "[t]he statement either caused the plaintiff economic...

To continue reading

Request your trial
60 cases
  • State ex rel. Balderas v. Real Estate Law Ctr., P.C.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • July 2, 2019
    ...v. Premcor Ref. Grp., Inc., No. 09-500 RBK/JS, 2011 WL 337951, at *4 (D. Del. Jan. 28, 2011) (Kugler, J.))). Cf. Sindi v. El-Moslimany, 896 F.3d 1, 31 n.12 (1st Cir. 2018) (avoiding the question because the state and federal law standards were the same).Although federal law governs prelimin......
  • Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • August 19, 2021
    ...relief "must be ‘no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs.’ " Sindi v. El-Moslimany, 896 F.3d 1, 31 (1st Cir. 2018) (quoting Madsen v. Women's Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 114 S.Ct. 2516, 129 L.Ed.2d 593 (1994) ). If the government ......
  • Vamos, Concertación Ciudadana, Inc. v. Puerto Rico
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • September 24, 2020
    ...U.S. 388, 391, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006). This is "an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right." Sindi v. El-Moslimany, 896 F.3d 1, 29 (1st Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). The plaintiffs shoulder the burden of establishing that:(1) [they have] suffered an i......
  • Bassett v. Jensen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • May 11, 2020
    ...break," (3) the interference "was improper in motive or means," and (4) the interference caused the plaintiff harm. Sindi v. El-Moslimany, 896 F.3d 1, 23 (1st Cir. 2018) (quoting Abramian v. Pres. & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 432 Mass. 107, 731 N.E.2d 1075, 1088 (2000) ). A reasonable factfi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • THE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE SUPREME COURT'S EMERGENCY STAYS.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 44 No. 3, June 2021
    • June 22, 2021
    ...See id. (118.) Id. at 1317 (quoting Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 716 (1931)). (119.) Id. at 1318. (120.) See Sindi v. El-Moslimany, 896 F.3d 1, 32 (1st Cir. 2018); Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Tr. Co., 78 F.3d 219, 225 (6th Cir. 1996); In re Dan Farr Prods., 874 F.3d 590, 596 n.8......
  • Defamation Dilemma: Is the First Amendment Protecting Unprotected Speech?
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 53 No. 1, January 2020
    • January 1, 2020
    ...N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 43, 45 (2017) (explaining several emerging views regarding injunctions' permissibility against defamation). (7.) 896 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. (8.) See id. at 30 (addressing split in decision between Sixth Circuit and Seventh Circuit surrounding injunctions' constitutionalit......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT