Shapiro v. Jacobson

Background

Trevor Shapiro and Johanna Qvist sued Trudy Jacobson and Stephen Komorek. The First Amended Complaint alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a federal law targeting certain organized patterns of criminal activity, and several New York tort claims.

The complaint alleged that, after Shapiro’s romantic relationship with Jacobson ended in December 2020, Jacobson began a campaign to harass, damage, and defame Shapiro. It alleged that Jacobson paid an investigative agency to conduct private investigations, that people followed or photographed Shapiro and Qvist, and that articles and social-media accounts falsely portrayed Shapiro and others as involved in prostitution, drugs, or sex trafficking. The complaint also alleged that Jacobson or people acting for her contacted businesses, employers, and professional contacts, causing lost work and business opportunities. Shapiro and Qvist alleged that they suffered emotional and psychological harm.

Defendants moved to dismiss every claim in the First Amended Complaint. On a motion to dismiss, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion but requires enough facts to make a claim plausible.

RICO claims

The court dismissed both the substantive RICO claim and the RICO conspiracy claim. A substantive civil RICO claim requires allegations that the defendant conducted an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. The court held that the complaint did not adequately allege the required pattern.

The court found no sufficient open-ended continuity because the alleged enterprise was not primarily or inherently unlawful, the complaint alleged gaps of more than a year in the alleged misconduct, and the alleged acts did not imply a threat of continued criminal activity. The court also found no sufficient closed-ended continuity. Although the alleged conduct covered slightly more than two years if the February 2020 incident was included, most conduct occurred during a shorter period, the alleged scheme involved at most three victims, and the alleged goal was narrow. The court viewed the February 2020 incident as separate because it occurred before Shapiro and Jacobson ended their relationship.

The RICO conspiracy claim also failed because the complaint did not state a substantive RICO claim and therefore did not adequately allege an agreement to violate RICO.

Tortious interference with business relations

The court denied the motion to dismiss the claims for tortious interference with business relations. The court applied New York’s three-year limitations period because the complaint alleged harm to specific business relationships and economic opportunities, rather than only general reputational harm.

The complaint alleged that Him-Eros shut down after an article was published, that a modeling agency stopped booking Shapiro, that a designer stopped working with him after receiving a link to an article, and that Qvist lost a potential work opportunity after Jacobson contacted the hospital. The complaint also alleged that Jacobson contacted Qvist’s workplace. Because these events allegedly occurred in 2021 or 2022, the court held that they fell within the three-year period for the complaint filed on May 12, 2023.

The court held that the February 2020 contact involving Shapiro’s earlier workplace was outside the three-year period and did not support a timely claim. The court did not consider defendants’ argument that Qvist’s claim was insufficiently pleaded because defendants raised that argument for the first time in their reply brief.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

The court dismissed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claims as untimely or insufficient. New York provides a one-year limitations period for this claim. The court considered the plaintiffs’ argument that later conduct continued the alleged wrong but held that the timely conduct did not independently amount to the extreme and outrageous conduct required for this claim.

For Shapiro, the timely allegations involved two communications with a fashion designer and related consequences. The court held that these allegations, even considered together, did not show the longstanding, deliberate, and malicious campaign required under New York law. For Qvist, the timely allegations involved contacts with her workplace and a prospective employer and an alleged impersonation at her bank. The court held that these allegations also did not show a sufficiently longstanding campaign within the limitations period.

Negligent infliction of emotional distress

The court dismissed the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. The complaint alleged intentional conduct, and the court held that intentional conduct could not serve as the basis for a negligence-based emotional-distress claim.

Defamation

The court dismissed the defamation claim as untimely. New York’s limitations period for defamation is one year and generally runs from publication. The complaint relied in part on articles published in 2021, and plaintiffs did not dispute that claims based on those publications were untimely.

Plaintiffs argued that a June 2022 republication restarted the limitations period. The court rejected that argument because the complaint did not allege that defendants participated in or approved the republication, controlled or financed it, contacted the publisher about it, or otherwise had any connection to it. The fact that the same website was the original publisher and the republisher was not enough to create a timely claim against defendants.

Disposition

The court stated that defendants’ motion to dismiss was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The only surviving claim was Count III, tortious interference with business relations, limited to conduct occurring on or after May 12, 2020. The court directed the parties to meet and confer and file a letter proposing next steps. The order did not state that any claim was dismissed with or without prejudice.