Bah v. Apple Inc.

Background

Ousmane Bah alleged that one or more thieves used his lost temporary New York learner’s permit to identify themselves as him. According to the First Amended Complaint, Apple Inc. and Security Industry Specialists, Inc. created and circulated an internal security record linking surveillance footage of a thief to Bah’s name and personal information. Bah alleged that the defendants later identified him as the person responsible for thefts from Apple stores in Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and New York, including by reporting accusations to law enforcement and using facial-recognition technology.

Bah asserted claims for defamation, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional harm, negligent infliction of emotional harm, and violations of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3), and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim. The opinion’s stated rulings focus on personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court held that it had specific personal jurisdiction over Apple and SIS for claims based on statements concerning the New York incidents and Bah’s arrest arising from those incidents. The court relied on allegations that Apple operated retail stores in New York, SIS provided loss-prevention services there, and the allegedly defamatory statements were made in New York, directed to the New York Police Department, and connected to the defendants’ New York business activities.

The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over claims based on the Connecticut, First New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Second New Jersey incidents. Those statements and prosecutions did not have a sufficient connection to the defendants’ New York business activities. The court also rejected reliance on Bah’s New York residence alone as a sufficient connection for the out-of-state malicious-prosecution claims.

The court therefore denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as to the New York defamation claims and the malicious-prosecution claims based on Bah’s New York arrest. It held that the claims based on the other incidents lacked personal jurisdiction and stated that those malicious-prosecution claims would be dismissed.

Failure to State a Claim

The court held that Bah plausibly stated New York defamation claims. Although communications to police and people sharing a business interest could receive qualified protection, Bah adequately alleged that the defendants acted with reckless disregard for whether their accusations were true. The court relied in part on allegations that defendants’ internal system identified two visibly different people as Bah.

The court also held that Bah plausibly stated malicious-prosecution claims based on his New York arrest. Although the defendants were private entities, the court concluded that Bah adequately alleged they played an active role by withholding material information from the police about the unreliable identification system. Because the arrest was made under arrest warrants, the court held that the arrest could support a malicious-prosecution claim even though Bah alleged no further New York prosecution.

The court dismissed Bah’s intentional-infliction-of-emotional-harm claim because New York law does not allow that claim to proceed when the alleged harm falls within traditional tort claims such as defamation or malicious prosecution. It dismissed the negligent-infliction-of-emotional-harm claims because Bah did not plausibly allege the required physical danger, a specific duty owed to him, or a direct connection between the defendants’ conduct and his emotional injuries.

Massachusetts Civil Rights Act Claims

The court dismissed Bah’s Massachusetts Civil Rights Act claims. It deemed them abandoned because Bah, who was represented by counsel, did not respond to the defendants’ arguments for dismissal. Alternatively, the court held that Bah had not adequately alleged threats, intimidation, or coercion, which the statute requires in addition to interference with a secured right.

Disposition

The court concluded that the defendants’ motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint were GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The New York defamation and malicious-prosecution claims survived the motions. All other claims for relief were dismissed. The court also stated that SIS could renew its personal-jurisdiction argument after Bah had an opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery.