McCollum v. Baldwin

Background

Jiennah McCollum, Roice Joleen McCollum, and Cheyenne McCollum brought a diversity action against Alec Baldwin. The first amended complaint asserted defamation, defamation per se, defamation by implication, negligence, gross negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Only Roice asserted the defamation claims. The plaintiffs sought $25 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

The dispute arose from Baldwin’s Instagram communications about Roice’s attendance at a January 6, 2021 demonstration in Washington, D.C. Baldwin first exchanged private messages with Roice, referring to her as a “January 6th rioter” and later as an “insurrectionist.” He then posted publicly about Roice, her family, his $5,000 donation to a GoFundMe campaign for Jiennah and her daughter, and Roice’s publicly posted photograph from the demonstration. The plaintiffs alleged that Baldwin’s posts caused his followers to send them hateful and threatening messages.

Baldwin moved to dismiss the first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Defamation claims

The court dismissed the defamation, defamation per se, and defamation-by-implication claims. It held that Baldwin’s private messages to Roice were not actionable because defamation requires publication to a third party.

The court also held that Roice was a limited public figure concerning the dispute. The court relied on her public Instagram post, her participation in public discussions about the January 6 demonstration and her brother’s death, her media appearances, and her continuing access to Instagram. As a limited public figure, Roice had to plead actual malice—meaning that Baldwin knew his statements were false or recklessly disregarded whether they were false. The court found that the complaint did not adequately plead actual malice. It concluded that the allegations suggested Baldwin believed his statements were true, and that negligence or a prediction that his comments would cause hostile reactions was not enough.

The court further held that Baldwin’s public post republishing Roice’s photograph was not defamatory. It viewed the post as stating basic facts about the parties’ interactions, expressing an opinion that “truth is stranger than fiction,” and republishing material Roice had herself posted publicly. The court also found that the complaint did not allege false information supporting defamation by implication because Roice admitted that she attended the January 6 demonstration, took the photograph, and was related to Rylee McCollum, whose family received Baldwin’s donation.

Negligence claims

The court dismissed the negligence, gross-negligence, and negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims. Under New York law, negligence generally requires a duty of care, and the court found that the plaintiffs did not plead a relationship with Baldwin that created such a duty. The court rejected the argument that the foreseeability of hateful messages from Baldwin’s followers, standing alone, created a duty to protect the plaintiffs from harm caused by those third parties.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

The court dismissed Roice’s intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim because it relied on the same underlying conduct as her defamation claims and was therefore duplicative. The court dismissed Jiennah’s and Cheyenne’s claims because the complaint did not adequately allege that Baldwin’s conduct was extreme and outrageous or that he intended to cause severe emotional distress. The hateful messages and death threats were sent by third parties and could not establish Baldwin’s liability for this claim.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted Baldwin’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint addressing the defamation and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims by September 12, 2023. The opinion states that the negligence and negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims were dismissed because Baldwin owed no duty of care. If the plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint by the deadline, the case would be closed; if they did, Baldwin was directed to answer by October 3, 2023.