Sparrow Fund Mgmt. LP v. Mimedx Grp., Inc.
Decision Date | 31 March 2019 |
Docket Number | 18 Civ. 4921 (PGG) (KHP) |
Parties | SPARROW FUND MANAGEMENT LP, Plaintiff, v. MIMEDX GROUP, INC., PARKER H. PETIT, and JOHN DOES 1-10 Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiff Sparrow Fund Management, LP ("Sparrow") brings this defamation action against Defendants MiMedx Group, Inc. ("MiMedx"), Parker H. Petit, and John Does. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants defamed it by making false statements about Sparrow in connection with a prior civil action.
Defendants MiMedx and Petit have moved to dismiss. (Mtns. (Dkt. Nos. 44, 46)) On December 14, 2018, Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motions. (R&R (Dkt. No. 84) at 25)1
Plaintiff and Defendants filed timely objections to the R&R. (Objs. (Dkt. Nos. 92-94)) Having reviewed the parties' objections, this Court will adopt Judge Parker's R&R in part as set forth below, and will grant Defendants' motions to dismiss in their entirety.
Plaintiff Sparrow is a New York-based hedge fund. (Cmplt. (Dkt. No. 6) ¶ 1) Defendant MiMedx is a biopharmaceutical company with its principal place of business in Georgia. (Id. ¶ 2) Defendant Petit is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of MiMedx. (Id. ¶ 3) John Does 1-10 are anonymous Twitter users. (Id. ¶ 4)
The instant action arises out of an earlier civil action (the "MiMedx Action"). See MiMedx Grp., Inc. et al. v. Sparrow Fund Mgmt. LLP et al., 17 Civ. 7568 (PGG) (KHP) (S.D.N.Y. 2017). Judge Parker summarizes that suit as follows:
The MiMedx Action was commenced on October 4, 2017 against Sparrow, Viceroy Research, and BR Dialectic Capital Management LLC and its principal John Fichthorn for defamation and related torts. [(MiMedx Action Dkt. No. 1)] The gravamen of the allegations in [the MiMedx Action] was that Sparrow or one of its principals (Nathan Koppikar), using the pseudonym Aurelius Value, defamed MiMedx in blog posts and tweets with the aim of harming market confidence in MiMedx and bettering Sparrow's short positions in MiMedx stock. Sparrow denied that it was Aurelius Value and argued to this Court that MiMedx had publicly recognized that it did not know who was behind Aurelius Value. [(MiMedx Action Dkt. Nos. 55, 56)] Sparrow moved to dismiss the complaint in the MiMedx Action. It also moved for sanctions against MiMedx under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court granted Sparrow's motion to dismiss but denied its motion for sanctions. SeeMiMedx Grp., Inc. v. Sparrow Fund Mgmt. LP, 17 Civ. 7568 (PGG) (KHP), 2018 WL 847014 (Jan. 12, 2018), adopted by 2018 WL 4735717 (Sept. 29, 2018). The MiMedx Action was subsequently terminated in its entirety after MiMedx elected not to file an amended complaint. [(MiMedx Action Dkt. Nos. 116, 117)]
On June 5, 2018 - during the pendency of the MiMedx Action - Sparrow commenced this action against Defendants. (Cmplt. (Dkt. No. 6)) Sparrow alleges that MiMedx and/or Petit made a number of defamatory statements about it, all related to claims made in the MiMedx Action. (Id. ¶¶ 12-27) Sparrow also alleges that MiMedx and Petit conspired with the John Doe Defendants to further defame Sparrow on social media. (Id. ¶¶ 28-39)
Judge Parker summarizes the alleged defamatory statements as follows:
Sparrow further claims that the John Doe Defendants conspired with MiMedx and Petit to make defamatory statements about Sparrow on Twitter and in a blog post. Judge Parker describes the factual basis of the conspiracy allegation as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial