Goolden v. Wardak

Background

Sarah Goolden sued Hamed Wardak in the Southern District of New York. She alleged that Wardak assaulted and sexually assaulted her during a trip to Miami, later harassed and stalked her in New York, and made false statements about her to others and on social media. Her complaint asserted assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation per se under New York law.

The court stated that it had jurisdiction because Goolden was a New York citizen, Wardak was a Puerto Rico citizen, and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Although some alleged conduct occurred in Florida, the court applied New York law because Wardak did not identify a relevant conflict between Florida and New York law.

Venue

Wardak argued that venue was improper because most of the alleged conduct occurred in Florida. The court held that Goolden made the required initial showing that substantial events supporting her emotional-distress and defamation claims occurred in New York, including the alleged harassment, stalking, and defamation after she returned there.

The court also exercised pendent venue over the assault and battery claims. That doctrine allows a court, in its discretion, to hear related claims even when venue for those claims would otherwise be improper. The court relied on judicial efficiency, convenience, avoiding separate lawsuits, and fairness. It therefore denied Wardak’s motion to dismiss for improper venue.

Pleading and Claims

Wardak argued that the complaint was too confusing under Rule 8(a), which requires a short and plain statement giving fair notice of the claims. The court found the complaint awkward but not so vague or unintelligible that Wardak could not understand and answer the allegations. It denied this part of the motion to dismiss.

The court denied dismissal of the assault and battery claims. It held that allegations that Wardak pulled Goolden by her hair, carried her, threw her onto a bed, threw objects at her, and sexually assaulted her despite her objections adequately stated those claims.

The court also denied dismissal of the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim. Although the court concluded that most of the alleged conduct either was not sufficiently extreme or fell within other traditional tort claims, it held that the alleged continuing campaign of harassment and stalking through social media and in person was sufficiently extreme and outrageous to support the claim at the pleading stage. The court also found that Goolden plausibly alleged intent to cause severe emotional distress, a causal connection, and severe emotional and psychological trauma.

The court granted dismissal of the defamation claims. Statements sent directly to Goolden accusing her of being an escort, sex trafficker, and racist were not published to a third party. Statements to Goolden’s brother and friend and social-media posts concerning alleged drug addiction did not include facts showing injury to her trade, business, or profession. The same defect applied to the alleged social-media insinuation that Goolden was sleeping with her lawyer. The court found that the complaint did not adequately allege what was said or how the statements affected her business relationships.

Motion to Strike

Wardak sought to strike allegations describing him as having a history of stalking and attacking women. The court denied the motion because Wardak had not shown that the allegations could not be admitted for any permissible purpose, such as showing motive, intent, or a plan.

Motion to Transfer

Wardak alternatively sought transfer to the Southern District of Florida. The court considered the convenience of the parties and witnesses, relevant documents, the location of events, the ability to require witnesses to attend, the parties’ financial means, familiarity with governing law, Goolden’s choice of forum, and trial efficiency.

The court found that nearly all of these factors weighed against transfer or were neutral. It noted that Goolden lived in New York, neither party lived in Florida, many relevant events occurred in New York, and Wardak had not adequately explained what his proposed witnesses would testify about. The court denied the motion to transfer.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Wardak’s motion to dismiss, denied the motion to strike, denied the motion to transfer, and granted Goolden leave to amend. Goolden was directed to file an amended complaint by August 13, 2020. The order states that if she did not do so by that date, the claims dismissed in the opinion would be dismissed with prejudice.