Sweigert v. Goodman

Background

The action involved two pro se litigants and allegations including defamation, criminal conduct, and other misconduct on the internet. Sweigert sought leave to file a third amended complaint. The parties also filed motions to dismiss claims asserted against them.

Sweigert asserted claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Goodman asserted a counterclaim alleging defamation per se.

Report and Recommendation

The magistrate judge recommended granting Goodman’s motion to dismiss Sweigert’s emotional-distress claims. For the intentional-infliction claim, the recommendation stated that Sweigert had not pleaded conduct that was legally outrageous and not actionable under another tort. For the negligent-infliction claim, the recommendation stated that Sweigert had not pleaded a risk of bodily injury.

The magistrate judge recommended denying Sweigert’s motion to dismiss Goodman’s defamation counterclaim. Sweigert timely objected to both recommendations. No party objected to the remaining recommendations. The district court therefore reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation independently and reviewed the remaining portions for clear error.

Ruling

The court adopted the report and recommendation in part and declined to adopt it in part. It overruled Sweigert’s objection to dismissal of the emotional-distress claims. The court held that the alleged conduct was not legally outrageous and that Sweigert had not pleaded severe emotional distress. It also held that a negligent-infliction claim required allegations that Goodman’s conduct caused Sweigert to fear for his physical safety, become physically endangered, or witness the death or serious physical injury of a family member; the court found that Sweigert had alleged none of those circumstances.

The court declined to grant Sweigert leave to amend those claims because he had already amended several times and his pleadings remained difficult to follow.

The court disagreed with the recommendation that Goodman had adequately pleaded defamation. Under Rule 12(b)(6), a claim may be dismissed when the pleading does not adequately state a legally sufficient claim. The court explained that even under the less demanding federal pleading standard, a defamation claimant must identify the allegedly defamatory statements, who made them, when they were made, and to whom they were published. The court found that Goodman’s allegations did not provide sufficient information about the dates, recipients, or contents of the alleged statements. It dismissed Goodman’s defamation counterclaim under Rule 12(b)(6), while giving Goodman leave to file an amended pleading consistent with the order by August 31, 2020. The court stated that failure to amend on time would be treated as abandonment of the counterclaim.

The clerk was directed to mail the order to both parties and terminate the pending motions.