Greer v. Fox Corporation

Background

Steven E. Greer, a medical doctor and writer proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that his business relationships with Fox-related defendants and others deteriorated after he appeared on Fox programs, published opinion pieces, and provided news tips. He alleged that defendants copied or used his writings and ideas, “blacklisted” him, made defamatory statements, interfered with business relationships, and caused him emotional distress.

Greer’s second amended complaint asserted eight state-law causes of action. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12, which allows a court to test whether a complaint adequately states claims that can proceed. Magistrate Judge Aaron recommended dismissing all claims but allowing Greer to replead some of them. Both sides objected: Greer challenged several proposed dismissals, while the defendants argued that no amendment should be allowed.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed Greer’s repeated arguments for clear error and reviewed the defendants’ specific challenge to leave to amend more closely. It agreed with the recommendation that all claims should be dismissed but concluded that amendment would not be appropriate.

Copyright preemption

The First, Second, Third, and Eighth Causes of Action included unfair competition, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of “hot news,” and a claim under the California Business and Professions Code. The court held that these claims were preempted by the federal Copyright Act because they sought rights equivalent to copyright rights. The court ruled that preemption applied even without a copyright registration and even though Greer described the alleged copying as involving ideas rather than tangible written works. It also declined to consider Greer’s proposed implied-contract theory because it was not pleaded as a cause of action and, in any event, did not adequately allege the elements of a contract.

The court adopted the Report’s recommendations as to these four causes of action and dismissed them with prejudice.

Defamation

The Fourth Cause of Action alleged defamation based on a 2013 security-desk incident, 2020 emails from Charles Gasparino, an email from Moser referring to Greer as “a nut,” and other less-specific incidents. The court agreed that the claims were not pleaded with the required detail and rejected Greer’s request for early discovery to develop them.

The court dismissed the 2013 claim with prejudice because New York’s one-year limitations period for defamation had expired. It dismissed the Gasparino claim with prejudice because Greer did not identify the alleged third-party recipients, the false statements, or adequate damages. It also found that the alleged statements were vague, opinion-based, or rhetorical. The Moser claim was dismissed with prejudice because generalized name-calling was not actionable on the allegations presented, and the remaining allegations were too indefinite to support a claim.

Tortious interference

The Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action alleged interference with contracts and with prospective economic relationships involving WABC Radio, OANN, and Rudy Giuliani. The court held that Greer’s allegations did not adequately show that the defendants knew about the alleged contracts or business relationships. His assertions that the defendants were connected to the relevant people and therefore “likely knew” were speculative and conclusory. The court concluded that amendment would be futile and dismissed both claims with prejudice.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

The Seventh Cause of Action concerned the 2013 security-desk incident, the Gasparino emails, and Fox’s handling of Greer’s books in its mailroom. The court held that the 2013 claim was barred by the one-year limitations period. It also held that the emails involved, at most, petty name-calling and did not allege sufficiently extreme and outrageous conduct. The mailroom allegations likewise did not approach the required level of outrageousness. The court dismissed these claims without leave to amend; the opinion also states that the mailroom claim should be denied with prejudice.

Disposition

The court overruled Greer’s objections and sustained the defendants’ objections. It adopted the Report insofar as it recommended dismissal of all claims, granted the motions to dismiss in full, dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice, directed entry of judgment, and closed the case. This is classified as a procedural order because the case was disposed of on motions to dismiss rather than through a merits judgment after the claims were tested in discovery or at trial.