Erdman v. Victor

Background

Tyler Erdman, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a defamation action against Adam Victor and the Board of Managers of Manhattan Place Condominium. The complaint asserted one defamation claim under New York and Connecticut law. The parties relied on New York law in their motion papers, and the court applied New York law.

Victor had served as president of the condominium’s Board for several decades. Erdman worked for Victor for several years until the summer of 2013. In 2014, Erdman assisted his then-girlfriend in bringing a lawsuit against Victor and the condominium, and Erdman and the defendants later litigated in New York and Delaware state courts.

A May 31, 2019, letter from Victor, sent as a Board member, referred to Erdman and his former girlfriend as falsely claiming to have been condominium employees and described their lawsuits as an “extortionate money grab.” After a new Board was elected, members allegedly told unit owners that Erdman had stolen documents, distributed stolen information, committed perjury, and extorted the condominium. Erdman alleged that these statements ended the possibility of settling his litigation with the condominium.

Legal standard

On a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true but does not accept legal conclusions presented as facts. The complaint must contain enough factual matter to make the claim plausible. Because Erdman was representing himself, the court also construed his filings liberally to raise the strongest arguments they suggested.

Under New York law, a defamation claim generally requires a false statement, publication to a third party, an unprivileged or unauthorized publication, and harm, unless the statement is actionable regardless of harm.

Statements by the 2019 Board

The court held that the statements by members of the 2019 Board were protected by the common-interest privilege. That privilege protects communications made between people who share an interest in the subject. The court treated condominium Board members and unit owners as a group with a common interest in Erdman’s litigation against the condominium.

The privilege could be defeated by adequately pleaded malice. The court explained that malice could mean either a high degree of awareness that the statement was probably false or ill will as the only cause of publication. The complaint did not plausibly allege either form of malice. The court therefore dismissed the defamation claim against the Board.

Statements by Victor

The court held that the complaint also failed to state a defamation claim against Victor. Victor’s description of Erdman’s lawsuit as an “extortionate money grab” was an expression of opinion rather than an actionable assertion that Erdman had committed the crime of extortion. The statement that Erdman had falsely claimed to be a condominium employee was not an accusation of perjury because it did not say that Erdman made the statement under oath in a proceeding.

Because the letter did not accuse Erdman of crimes, the court held that the complaint did not plead defamation per se, a category of defamation for which special damages are not required. The complaint therefore had to plead special damages—specific economic losses flowing directly from the reputational injury. The court found that Erdman’s alleged lost opportunity to settle did not satisfy this requirement because the complaint identified other causes that prevented settlement, including Victor’s efforts to conceal the litigation and prevent settlement discussions. The alleged damages were also too imprecise because the complaint sought more than $75,000 “in an amount to be determined” without itemization or explanation.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court did not grant leave to amend automatically, but stated that Erdman could seek permission to replead by filing a letter and attaching a proposed amended complaint marked to show changes by July 7, 2021. The Clerk was directed to close the motion and mail Erdman a copy of the Opinion and Order.