Tatas v. Ali Baba's Terrace Inc.

Background

Mehmet Emin Tatas filed the case in New York state court on December 11, 2020. He alleged that Ali Riza Dogan violated his rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by filing counterclaims against him in other litigation pending in the federal court. The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The defendants received permission to seek dismissal of Tatas’s complaint. They also sought a pre-motion conference about a possible request for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 if Tatas did not withdraw the case. The defendants argued that § 1983 cases can be brought only against state actors. Tatas then asked to amend his complaint by withdrawing the § 1983 claim and asserting only a defamation claim.

Court’s guidance and the parties’ positions

The court stated that it would grant Tatas’s request to withdraw the § 1983 claim, but explained that it would not have subject-matter jurisdiction—the court’s power to hear the case—over any remaining state-law claims. The court instructed Tatas either to dismiss the entire case, without prejudice to filing a defamation case in state court, or to explain why amending the complaint to add defamation would not be futile.

Tatas asked to voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice to filing a state defamation case. The defendants urged the court to retain jurisdiction over any defamation claim and argued that such a claim would be futile because the statements were made during a judicial proceeding and were likely protected by absolute privilege under New York law. They also argued that the one-year limitations period for defamation claims had expired.

Rulings

The court agreed that any future defamation claim would likely be futile because Tatas had not shown why it would not be both time-barred and protected by absolute privilege. The court did not decide a defamation claim, however, because no such claim was properly before it.

The court denied Tatas’s request to file a motion to remand the case to state court. It granted Tatas’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the action and ordered that the dismissal be with prejudice. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the case and canceled the scheduled case conference.

The order states that the dismissal does not prohibit Tatas from bringing a defamation action in state court. It nevertheless observes that such a claim is almost certain to be time-barred and barred by absolute privilege, based on the reasons described in the defendants’ letter.