US Dominion, Inc. v. MyPillow, Inc.

• Docket Number: Civil Action 1:21-cv-0445 (CJN)
• Decision Date: 19 May 2022
• Parties: US DOMINION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, v. MYPILLOW, INC., et al., Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs, v. SMARTMATIC USA CORP., et al., Third-Party Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

1

US DOMINION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, v. MYPILLOW, INC., et al., Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs, v. SMARTMATIC USA CORP., et al., Third-Party Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-0445 (CJN)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

May 19, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CARL J. NICHOLS, United States District Judge.

Michael Lindell and MyPillow assert various counterclaims and “third-party” claims against U.S. Dominion, Inc. and its related corporate entities, as well as against Smartmatic, its related corporate entities, and Hamilton Place Strategies, LLC. See Lindell's Counterclaims, ECF No. 87; MyPillow's Counterclaims, ECF No. 90. The counter- and third-party-claim defendants have moved to dismiss the claims lodged against them. See Dominion's Motion to Dismiss (“Dominion's Mot.”), ECF No. 115; Smartmatic's Motion to Dismiss (“Smartmatic's Mot.”), ECF No. 94. The Court grants those motions.

I. The Relevant Procedural and Factual Background

In early 2021, Dominion filed three separate lawsuits against Sidney Powell and entities related to her, Rudy Giuliani, and Michael Lindell and MyPillow, alleging that they each defamed Dominion in connection with the 2020 presidential election. See U.S. Dominion, Inc. v. Powell 554 F.Supp.3d 42, 49 (D.D.C. 2021). As to Lindell and MyPillow, Dominion alleges inter alia that Lindell (the founder of MyPillow) appeared on a Newsmax show and declared that “the biggest fraud is the Dominion machines;” claimed that Dominion machines “were built to cheat” and “steal elections;” and welcomed Dominion to come after him “because he had all the evidence and then they'll finally see it.” Id. at 54. Dominion also alleges that Lindell leveraged MyPillow as a sponsor of several rallies in support of President Trump, while also offering discounts on products using discount codes such as “FightforTrump, ” “45, ” and “PROOF.” Id.

All defendants moved to dismiss. Id. at 56. Lindell and MyPillow filed separate motions, providing a variety of arguments as to why Dominion failed to state a single claim for relief. Id. The Court denied both motions (as well as Powell's and Giuliani's motions) in full. See generally id. Lindell and MyPillow attempted to appeal the Court's Order. See MyPillow's Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 65; Lindell's Notice of Appeal ECF No. 66. As Lindell and MyPillow saw things, the order denying their motions to dismiss was appealable under the collateral-order doctrine. See MyPillow's Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 65; Lindell's Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 66.

While the appeals were pending, the Court ordered Lindell and MyPillow to answer Dominion's Complaint on or before December 2, 2021. See Order, ECF No. 85. The Court also ordered Lindell and MyPillow to coordinate and refile as counterclaims in the present action the claims they had asserted against Dominion in separate lawsuits. See id. Lindell and MyPillow filed separate answers and lodged their claims against Dominion as counterclaims. See Lindell's Counterclaims; see also MyPillow's Counterclaims. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals dismissed Lindell and MyPillow's appeals, see U.S. Dominion, Inc. v. My Pillow, Inc., No. 21-7103, 2022 WL 774080, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 20, 2022), and the mandate has since issued, see Mandate, ECF No. 122.

The allegations supporting Lindell's and MyPillow's claims against Dominion span about five (nearly identical) paragraphs of their separate pleadings. Compare Lindell's Counterclaims ¶¶ 130-135 with MyPillow's Counterclaims ¶¶ 130-135. According to both Lindell and MyPillow, “Dominion seeks to intimidate those who might dare to come forward with evidence of election fraud, stop criticism of election voting machines, and suppress information about how its machines have been hacked in American elections.” Lindell's Counterclaims ¶ 130; see also MyPillow's Counterclaims ¶ 130 (“Dominion seeks to stop criticism of electronic election equipment and suppress information about how equipment that it supplied has been hacked in American elections.”). Both also allege that “Dominion's exaggerated lawsuits . . . are not about any damages it has suffered; they are designed to intimidate those who exercise their right to free speech about the election.” Lindell's Counterclaims ¶ 131; see also MyPillow's Counterclaims ¶ 131. Both protest Dominion's decision to send “at least 150 attorney letters, threatening the recipients with legal action;” Lindell's Counterclaims ¶ 132(a); MyPillow's Counterclaims ¶ 132(a); complain about Dominion's decision to file lawsuits against them; Lindell's Counterclaims ¶ 131; MyPillow's Counterclaims ¶ 131; and protest Dominion's “publiciz[ing]” of its lawsuits; Lindell's Counterclaims ¶ 133; MyPillow's Counterclaims ¶ 133.

Lindell asserts eight claims against Dominion: (1) abuse of process, (2) defamation, (3) civil conspiracy, (4) violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (better known as RICO), (5) violations of the Support or Advocacy Clause of 42 U.S.C. §1985(3), and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (6) violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, (7) violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, and (8) unlawful retaliation and viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. See Lindell's Counterclaims ¶¶ 142-183. MyPillow asserts five claims against Dominion: (1) abuse of process, (2) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and under § 1983, (3) violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, (4) unlawful retaliation and viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment, and (5) reprisal. See MyPillow's Counterclaims ¶¶ 145-183.

Lindell has also filed what he styles as a “Third-Party Complaint” against Smartmatic and Hamilton Place. See generally Lindell's Counterclaims.^[1] Lindell alleges that Dominion's publicrelations firm, Hamilton Place, worked with Dominion and “threatened Lindell with financial ruin if he did not stop publicly expressing his political speech regarding the issues surrounding the use of electronic voting machines in the 2020 General Election.” Id. ¶ 9. He also claims that Smartmatic, together with Dominion and Hamilton Place, has “weaponized the court system and the litigation process in an attempt to silence Lindell's and others' political speech about election fraud and the role of electronic voting machines in it.” Id. ¶ 36. According to Lindell, Smartmatic, working with Dominion and Hamilton Place, has sought “to punish and deter important constitutionally-protected activity-free expression about a matter of public concern.” Id. ¶ 136.

Lindell asserts three claims against both Smartmatic and Hamilton Place: (1) civil conspiracy, (2) violations of RICO, and (3) violations of the Support or Advocacy clause. See Id. ¶¶ 142-183. Lindell also sues Smartmatic (but not Hamilton Place) under § 1983 for (4) violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, (5) violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, and (6) unlawful retaliation and viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. See id.

Dominion, Hamilton Place, and Smartmatic (and related entities) have moved to dismiss all of Lindell and MyPillow's claims against them. See Dominion's Mot.; see also Smartmatic's Mot. The Court addresses the claims in turn.

II. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) requires dismissal of a complaint if it “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss filed under Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must plead “facts to state a claim of relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A court treats the “complaint's factual allegations as true and afford[s] the plaintiff the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.” Atlas Brew Works, LLC v. Barr, 391 F.Supp.3d 6, 11 (D.D.C. 2019) (quotation omitted). Although the court accepts all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The claim to relief must be “plausible on its face, ” id., meaning that the plaintiff must have pleaded “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

III. Lindell's and MyPillow's Claims

1. Lindell's and MyPillow's Abuse of Process Claims

Both Lindell and MyPillow assert abuse of process claims against Dominion (and Dominion alone). See Lindell's Counterclaims ¶ 142; MyPillow's Counterclaims ¶ 175. At root, Lindell and MyPillow claim that Dominion initiated its lawsuit against them not to recover for the harms that Lindell and MyPillow may have caused Dominion, but rather for the “ulterior purpose” of “silencing” and retaliating against them for speaking out about alleged vulnerabilities of Dominion's election machines. See Lindell's Counterclaims ¶ 144; MyPillow's Counterclaims ¶ 177. Lindell for example, alleges that Dominion “brought suit against Lindell as part of a widespread ‘lawfare' campaign designed by Dominion . . . not to compensate for any harm to Dominion caused by the public statements by Lindell and others, but to weaponize the judicial system in order to quash political dissent and silence those who would have the citizens of the United States (and the world, for that matter) know the truth about the grave flaws in Dominion's voting machines (as well as the voting machines of others).” Lindell's Counterclaims ¶ 145. MyPillow likewise contends that Dominion “filed a lawsuit against MyPillow” so that MyPillow...