Rosa v. Eaton

Background

Reynaldo Rosa, Jr. and Little Italy Street Art Project NYC (LISA Project) sued Tristan Eaton, alleging copyright infringement and defamation. The motion addressed only Count III, the defamation claim.

According to the amended complaint, LISA Project coordinated Eaton’s creation of two murals in 2013. On July 17, 2023, Eaton posted on Instagram that he had learned LISA Project was trying to destroy his mural in SoHo without his consent or notice. He also wrote that he believed LISA Project members were “criminals preying on our culture,” and later referred to “greedy crooks with a vendetta.” The posts received more than 3,000 likes and 152 comments. Plaintiffs alleged that the statements were false, caused people to attack LISA Project online, and led one company to withdraw sponsorship.

Issue and legal standard

The court considered whether the July 17 Instagram post plausibly stated an actionable defamation claim under New York law. On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court generally accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and asks whether they plausibly support legal relief. New York defamation law requires, among other things, a written defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, publication, fault, falsity, and special damages or a statement actionable without proof of special damages.

The court explained that statements of fact may support defamation claims, but expressions of opinion are protected. To distinguish fact from opinion, courts consider whether the language has a precise meaning, whether it can be proven true or false, and whether the context signals that readers are receiving an opinion.

Analysis

The court held that Eaton’s statement that LISA Project was trying to destroy the mural did not unmistakably accuse the organization of criminal conduct. At most, the court said, the statement was hyperbolic and lacked the specificity of an accusation of a crime.

The court also held that the references to LISA Project as criminals, predators, scum, and greedy crooks were vague and imprecise epithets that could not be proven true or false. The Instagram setting further supported treating the statements as opinions because social-media platforms are informal and commonly understood as places where people express personal views. The court emphasized that social-media statements are not automatically immune from defamation liability, but concluded that an average reader would understand these particular statements as Eaton’s opinions.

Because Plaintiffs did not establish the first element—that Eaton made a defamatory statement—the court did not address the remaining defamation elements. The court also stated that any implied-defamation theory would fail for the same reason.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss and dismissed Count III of the amended complaint. The order did not rule on the copyright claim. The court ordered Plaintiffs to file, within two weeks, a letter addressing whether LISA Project continued to have a stake in the case after Count III was dismissed. It also set the parties’ joint pretrial statement deadline for 30 days after the opinion and order.