Mosha v. Facebook Inc.

Background

Yury Mosha and Russian America Inc., a corporation, brought a libel action against 17 defendants in New York state court. GoDaddy.com, Inc. removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, and Facebook, Inc. and Namecheap, Inc. consented to removal. The defendants whose motion was decided were Facebook, GoDaddy, and Namecheap.

Mosha alleged that articles published on websites and social media questioned whether he was a law-abiding person and harmed his current and prospective contractual relationships. He alleged that the relevant publications occurred between June 2017 and October 2018, that the defendants did not remove or unregister the websites after he notified them, and that he suffered losses. He sought $100,000 from each defendant. Mosha proceeded without a lawyer and attempted to represent Russian America as well.

Issues and analysis

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court accepted factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion but did not accept unsupported legal conclusions.

First, the court dismissed Russian America without prejudice because it is a corporation and was not represented by a licensed attorney. The court held that Mosha, who is not an attorney, could represent himself but could not represent the corporation in federal court.

Second, the court held that Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act barred Mosha’s libel claim against Facebook, GoDaddy, and Namecheap. Section 230 generally protects an interactive computer-service provider from being treated as the publisher or speaker of information supplied by another information-content provider. The court found that all three defendants were providers of interactive computer services, that the complaint treated them as publishers or speakers, and that the allegedly libelous information was created by other parties. Mosha’s allegations that the defendants were agents or codefendants of the people who produced the statements were speculative and conclusory.

Mosha argued that a photograph in the articles created an exception for intellectual-property claims under Section 230(e)(2). The court stated that a copyright claim could not be raised for the first time in opposition to a motion to dismiss the libel claim. It also concluded that the complaint did not adequately show ownership of a valid copyright. In addition, the court held that a possible copyright claim would not remove Section 230 protection from the separate libel claim.

Third, the court held that the libel claim was time-barred under New York law. New York requires an action for libel or slander to be filed within one year of publication. The publications alleged in the complaint occurred more than one year before the complaint was filed in February 2020. The court applied New York’s general single-publication rule, under which the limitations period ordinarily runs from the first publication, and found no allegations sufficient to invoke the narrow republication exception. Speculation that the material might have been republished did not extend the filing deadline. The court also ruled that the longer limitations period for copyright claims could not preserve a time-barred libel claim.

Disposition

Judge John G. Koeltl granted the motion to dismiss. Russian America was dismissed without prejudice because it lacked counsel. The court dismissed the complaint and allowed Mosha to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the order. The order states that if he does not file an amended complaint, the claims will be dismissed with prejudice. If he files one, the defendants must move or answer within the time allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The clerk was directed to close Docket Nos. 21, 27, and 33 and mail the order to Mosha.