Prince v. The Intercept

Background

Erik Prince sued The Intercept’s owner, First Look Media Works, Inc., doing business as First Look Institute, Inc., and reporters Matthew Cole and Alex Emmons. Prince asserted claims for defamation per se and defamation per quod based on an August 13, 2020 article. He alleged that the article falsely portrayed him as meeting with a top Wagner Group official and offering military services to support Wagner’s operations in Libya and Mozambique. Prince also alleged that the article accused him of illegal conduct involving United States and United Nations sanctions and arms-trafficking regulations.

First Look and Cole moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, and under New York’s anti-strategic litigation against public participation law. Emmons moved under Rule 12(b)(2), arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him, and under Rule 12(b)(6). Emmons also joined the anti-strategic litigation argument.

Personal Jurisdiction Over Emmons

The court rejected Prince’s argument that Emmons should be barred from contesting jurisdiction because of a statement made in an earlier related proceeding. The court found that Emmons’s circumstances had changed, including his employment and domicile, and that the earlier court had not accepted the proposition that New York had personal jurisdiction over him.

The court held that New York lacked general jurisdiction over Emmons because New York was not his domicile when Prince filed the complaint. The court also held that Prince failed to establish specific jurisdiction under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 302(a)(1). Although Emmons had work-related contacts with New York, including sending research to a New York-based colleague and reviewing the article before publication, he did not conduct research, interview a source, or rely on a New York source in connection with the allegedly defamatory statements. Because Prince failed both parts of the applicable jurisdiction test, the court granted Emmons’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion.

Defamation Claims Against the First Look Defendants

The court determined that New York law governed because New York had a more significant relationship to the dispute than Wyoming. The court noted that the First Look defendants were based in New York, the article was prepared and published from New York, and New York has a strong interest in regulating the conduct of its media. The court also found that the article concerned matters of public interest under New York’s amended anti-strategic litigation law.

The court concluded that Prince was a limited-purpose public figure concerning the public debate over using private military contractors in foreign conflicts. It relied on his founding and leadership of Blackwater, his public writing and interviews about private military contractors, his prominent role in that debate, and his continuing access to media outlets.

Because Prince was a limited-purpose public figure and the claim fell within New York’s anti-strategic litigation law, he had to plausibly allege actual malice. Actual malice means that the defendants knew a statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was false. The court found that Prince’s allegations—including reliance on anonymous sources, alleged violations of The Intercept’s policies, refusal to engage with his denial, and political bias—did not plausibly show actual malice. The court also noted that the article included Prince’s denial and that at least one challenged statement was attributed to documents and a person familiar with Prince’s proposal. Because the complaint failed to plausibly allege actual malice, the court did not decide whether the statements were false.

Fees and Leave to Amend

The court denied the defendants’ request for costs and attorneys’ fees under New York’s anti-strategic litigation law. It held that the fee statute’s “substantial basis” standard conflicted with the standards governing motions to dismiss and summary judgment in federal court.

The court found that amendment against Emmons would be futile because Prince could not provide additional substantive information establishing personal jurisdiction. It nevertheless granted Prince leave to amend against the First Look defendants because additional facts might plausibly allege actual malice. The court therefore granted in part and denied in part Prince’s request for leave to amend.

Disposition

The court granted Emmons’s motion to dismiss with prejudice and granted the First Look defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice. Prince could file an amended complaint against the First Look defendants within 30 days. The court denied the defendants’ request for costs and attorneys’ fees.