Lindell v. Mail Media, Inc.

Background

Michael Lindell brought a single defamation claim against Mail Media, Inc. (doing business as Mail Online) and Laura Collins. The claim concerned a January 21, 2021 tabloid article attributed to Collins and published on Mail Media’s website. The article stated that Lindell had secretly dated actress Jane Krakowski for about nine months, pursued her with flowers and gifts, and gave her champagne and other liquor. It also said that Krakowski later ended the relationship, possibly because she did not like how Lindell treated women.

Lindell alleged that he and Krakowski had never met and that the article was false. He also alleged that, as a recovering alcoholic and Christian who founded the Lindell Recovery Network, he would not buy alcohol for another person or engage in a secret romantic relationship. He claimed the article damaged his reputation in addiction-recovery and religious communities and harmed the Recovery Network’s relationships with churches.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. While that motion was pending, Lindell filed an amended complaint within the period when he could amend once without permission. The court treated the amended complaint as the operative pleading and evaluated the motion against it.

Legal Standard

The parties agreed that New York law applied. Under that law, a defamation plaintiff must allege a written defamatory statement about the plaintiff, publication to a third party, fault, falsity, and either special damages or a statement actionable without proof of specific financial harm. The court explained that whether the challenged words could reasonably carry a defamatory meaning is ordinarily a legal question decided at the pleading stage.

The court considered the full article because Lindell’s amended complaint quoted it extensively. At this stage, the court treated well-pleaded factual allegations as true but did not accept legal conclusions presented as facts.

Why the Court Dismissed the Defamation Claim

The court ruled that the article’s statements about Lindell’s alleged relationship with Krakowski were not defamatory on their face. Even assuming the relationship was fabricated, the court said that dating an actress, secretly or otherwise, did not expose Lindell to public hatred, shame, ridicule, or similar condemnation. The article described two unmarried adults in what it portrayed as a consensual relationship and did not accuse Lindell of sexual conduct, much less serious sexual misconduct.

The court separately rejected Lindell’s challenge to the statements that he gave Krakowski champagne and other liquor. The article expressly described Lindell as sober and did not state that he consumed alcohol. The court concluded that buying alcohol as a gift for a dating partner was a legal and ordinary act and could not reasonably be understood as defamatory.

The court also rejected defamation by implication. That theory applies when otherwise ordinary words allegedly communicate a defamatory idea because of their context or an intended inference. The court found no language suggesting that Lindell was a religious or recovery-related hypocrite. The article did not mention the Lindell Recovery Network or Lindell’s work with people struggling with substance abuse, and the court said those outside facts could not supply a defamatory meaning that was absent from the article itself. The court also found that Lindell had not adequately alleged that the defendants intended or endorsed an implication that he was a hypocrite. It therefore did not reach the defendants’ arguments about actual malice or the incremental harm doctrine.

Attorneys’ Fees

The defendants requested attorneys’ fees under New York’s statute addressing certain meritless lawsuits that affect speech. The court ruled that they were not entitled to fees in this action because the statute required a defendant to bring a claim, counterclaim, or separate action for fees, and the defendants had not asserted a standalone counterclaim before the case was dismissed. The court stated that they would apparently need to file a separate lawsuit to seek fees and noted that an award was not guaranteed.

Disposition

Judge Crotty granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed Lindell’s amended complaint without prejudice. The order allowed Lindell to file a letter motion and proposed amended complaint by January 14, 2022 if he believed he could state a valid claim. The Clerk was directed to close the motion.