Atas v. The New York Times Company

Background

Nadire Atas, proceeding without a lawyer, sued The New York Times Company and 73 named defendants, along with Jane and John Doe defendants. She alleged that The New York Times published two false and defamatory articles about her—“A Vast Web of Vengeance” and “Woman Accused of Defaming Dozens Online Is Arrested”—and that the articles were discussed on The Daily podcast. She also referred to social-media accounts associated with the reporter who wrote the articles. Atas sought money damages for the alleged harm.

The order states that Atas is a Canadian national residing in Ontario, Canada. The defendants allegedly included people and entities in Canada, Britain, and the United States. Atas filed the case without paying filing fees, and the court had previously allowed her to proceed without prepaying those fees.

Subject-matter jurisdiction

The court explained that federal district courts generally have jurisdiction over federal-law claims or cases involving complete diversity of citizenship and more than $75,000 in controversy. Atas did not identify a jurisdictional basis, but the court understood her state-law defamation claims as potentially invoking diversity jurisdiction.

The court held that diversity jurisdiction was absent. Because Atas was a foreign national, the plaintiff’s side contained only an alien. The defendants included both foreign citizens and United States citizens. Under the jurisdictional rules discussed by the court, that combination did not establish the required complete diversity. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).

The court allowed Atas 30 days to file an amended complaint. It stated that she might be able to establish diversity jurisdiction by dropping nondiverse defendants, but any amended complaint also had to assert a plausible claim within the court’s jurisdiction.

Defamation allegations

The court separately observed that, even if Atas established jurisdiction, the complaint did not appear to state viable libel claims against many defendants. The court explained that libel is written defamation and that, under New York law, a libel claim requires a written defamatory statement about the plaintiff, publication to a third party, fault, falsity, and special damages or a statement actionable without proof of special damages.

Atas named many individuals, lawyers, law firms, and entities without alleging facts connecting them to the Times articles or explaining why each was liable for the alleged libel. The court gave the Myers-Briggs Company and IBM as examples of defendants named without facts showing their connection to the alleged publications. The court directed that any amended complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claims and facts showing why each named defendant was liable.

Disposition

The court dismissed Atas’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It granted her 30 days’ leave to file an amended complaint within the court’s jurisdiction. It also denied her application for appointed counsel without prejudice. The court stated that if she did not timely file a sufficient amended complaint, it would enter judgment dismissing the action for the reasons stated in the order. It further denied fee-free status for an appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The order did not decide whether the statements in the articles or podcast were false or defamatory.