McGillvary v. Rolling Stone, LLC

Background

Caleb L. McGillvary, representing himself, sued Rolling Stone, LLC, Marlow Stern, and Wenner Media, LLC. He asserted a defamation claim based on a January 8, 2023, Rolling Stone article titled “DARK TALE: A Hatchet Wielding Hitchhiker Went Viral. Then He Killed Someone.” The article discussed a hatchet incident involving McGillvary and his later conviction for an unrelated murder.

McGillvary challenged four statements in the article: that people who knew him described him as prone to “fits of rage”; that he tried to start a fire in his family home and was sent to foster care at age 13; that he bragged about giving Jett Simmons McBride a drug-laced joint; and that McGillvary told McBride they were both ghosts and could drive through a truck unseen. McGillvary claimed these statements mischaracterized him, implied that he committed arson, suggested that he caused McBride’s attack on others, and implied that he committed perjury.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not plausibly state a legal claim. McGillvary also asked to file a second amended complaint.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied New York defamation law. A defamation claim generally requires a written defamatory statement about the plaintiff, publication to another person, fault, falsity, and either special damages or a statement actionable without proof of special damages.

For the “fits of rage” statement, the court held that the statement was protected opinion rather than an actionable statement of fact. In context, the article immediately followed the statement with a relative’s comments expressing an opinion about McGillvary’s mental issues and behavior under pressure.

For the “fire starter” statement, the court concluded that McGillvary’s own allegations admitted that he had attempted to start a fire in his family home. The statement therefore could not support a defamation claim based on falsity. The court also rejected McGillvary’s argument that the statement implied he had committed felonious arson, finding that the article could not reasonably be read to convey that meaning and that there were no allegations showing the defendants intended or endorsed it.

For the “laced-joint” and “ghosts” statements, the court held that the alleged defamatory implications depended on materials outside the article, including the record from the criminal case involving McBride. The relevant question was how the article itself would be understood by its readers. The court found that the article, read as a whole, did not imply that McGillvary caused McBride to harm others or that McGillvary committed perjury. The court also noted that quoting statements by others did not amount to endorsing them, and that the article included a toxicology report finding only marijuana in McBride’s system, which provided a contrary perspective regarding the laced-joint statement.

Because the court concluded that none of the challenged statements was actionable, it did not decide the defendants’ additional arguments that McGillvary was “libel-proof” under New York law or that he was a limited-purpose public figure who had to plead actual malice.

Motion to Amend and Disposition

The court denied McGillvary’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint because the proposed complaint did not cure the deficiencies in the first amended complaint. In particular, it added no facts that would support the alleged implication that McGillvary committed perjury. The court found that amendment would therefore be futile.

Judge Dale E. Ho granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied McGillvary’s motion for leave to amend. The court ordered that McGillvary’s claims be dismissed with prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and close the case.