Samuel v. Oromia Media Network

Background

Tibebe F. Samuel, representing himself, sued Oromia Media Network (OMN), its principal officer Taddele M. Kitaba, and Ayantu Bekecho. The order states that Bekecho had not been served with the amended complaint and had not appeared. OMN is described as a Minneapolis-based media organization that broadcasts citizen journalism concerning Oromo and Ethiopian people.

Samuel alleged that OMN’s coverage of political unrest and violence in Ethiopia encouraged extremist viewers to engage in violence and property destruction. He claimed that the resulting protests, internet shutdowns, and road closures prevented him from operating his traditional-clothing business, caused $100,000 in lost revenue, destroyed approximately 2.5 million Ethiopian Birr worth of property, and severely injured his business partner and brother. Samuel also alleged that OMN’s continuing coverage prevented him from resuming operations.

Samuel’s amended complaint asserted Minnesota common-law negligence and negligence per se, a theory that treats violation of a statute as negligence, based on alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 956 and 878 and 26 U.S.C. § 501(c). OMN and Kitaba moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court separately addressed Samuel’s preliminary-injunction motion and stated that the motion was not then before it, but would be denied as moot because of the dismissal.

Negligence claim

Under Minnesota law, negligence requires a duty of care, breach of that duty, injury, and proximate cause. The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that Samuel adequately alleged a duty concerning OMN’s messages and a breach of that duty. It nevertheless held that he did not plausibly allege proximate cause.

The court found the alleged connection between OMN’s reporting and the damage to Samuel’s business too indirect in light of Ethiopia’s broader civil turmoil. The amended complaint acknowledged other contributing factors, including the assassination of Hachalu Hundessa and postponement of the 2020 election. Samuel did not plausibly explain how OMN’s speech, rather than extremists affected by the broader political climate, was a substantial factor in causing his injuries. The court therefore concluded that the negligence claim failed as a matter of law.

Free-speech protection

The court also held that the First Amendment’s protection of speech independently defeated Samuel’s tort claim. Speech concerning political and social matters receives strong constitutional protection, particularly in the press context, unless it falls within a narrow category of unprotected speech.

Samuel argued that OMN’s speech was incitement. Applying the rule from Brandenburg v. Ohio, the court explained that incitement requires speech directed at producing imminent unlawful action and likely to produce that action. The court said that, even if OMN’s alleged slogans could be understood as promoting violence, Samuel did not plausibly allege that OMN intended to cause violence or that the speech had an imminent temporal connection to the protests. His characterization of the speech as incitement was not enough.

The court also declined to consider additional statements Samuel raised in his response to the motion because he had not included them in his amended complaint. It concluded that Samuel was barred from bringing the tort claim against OMN based on the allegations in that complaint.

Negligence per se claim

The court rejected Samuel’s negligence per se claim because violating a federal statute does not automatically create a private right of action. The court said Samuel had not met, or attempted to meet, his burden of showing that Congress intended the cited statutes to allow a private lawsuit. The claim therefore failed as a matter of law.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss, denied the preliminary-injunction motion as moot, and dismissed the case with prejudice. Judge David S. Doty signed the order on November 1, 2021.