Satz v. Organization for the Resolution of Agunot Inc.

Background

Allen Jeffrey Satz, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the Organization for the Resolution of Agunot Inc. (ORA) and three individual defendants under New York law. The complaint asserted six causes of action: defamation, unauthorized use of a photograph, use of a forged document, false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy.

Satz challenged materials ORA posted online concerning his refusal to consent to a Jewish religious divorce, known as a Get. One flyer displayed his picture, labeled him a “GET-REFUSER,” and stated that “GET-REFUSAL IS DOMESTIC ABUSE.” ORA also posted a rabbinical ruling, called a Psak Din, that stated Satz was recalcitrant in rabbinical proceedings, obligated to divorce his wife under Jewish law, and subject to public criticism and demonstrations if he remained recalcitrant. Satz alleged that these materials contained false statements, encouraged harassment, and used his image without authorization.

The individual defendants were named as the people who signed the Psak Din. They were never served and never appeared. After the court directed Satz to serve them or face dismissal of the claims against them, Satz stated that he was dismissing his claims against those defendants. The Clerk then terminated the case as to the individual defendants. ORA alone moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Defamation

The court applied New York law. It held that the statement “GET-REFUSAL IS DOMESTIC ABUSE” was not an actionable factual statement. Considering the flyer as a whole, the court found that the statement appeared separately from the flyer’s factual list, in different formatting and near ORA’s advocacy logo. In that context, the statement expressed ORA’s opinion. The court also held that whether get refusal is abusive was not a provably false statement of fact. Satz therefore failed to state a defamation claim based on that statement.

The court separately considered other statements on the flyer. It found that Satz did not challenge the truth of several statements, including that he and his wife had separated, that a rabbinical court had issued a ruling concerning him, and that he had refused to consent to a Get for at least some period. The court also held that the statement that Satz’s wife had been “chained to a dead marriage for over four years” was not materially different from the facts alleged by Satz, because it did not necessarily assert that he had unconditionally refused to give a Get throughout that entire period. The statement that Satz’s wife could not remarry without a Get was substantially true in the context of Jewish law.

As to the Psak Din, the court explained that ORA could potentially be liable for republishing defamatory statements made by others. But deciding whether the challenged statements were true would require the court to determine what Jewish law required, what counted as a proper response to a rabbinical summons, and when Satz’s wife became an agunah under Jewish law. The court held that this inquiry would impermissibly entangle it in religious questions under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. It therefore dismissed the defamation claim based on the Psak Din.

Use of Satz’s Picture

The court found that the complaint did not clearly identify a legally recognized claim called “unauthorized use of photo” or “Right to Publicity Law.” New York Civil Rights Law sections 50 and 51 address nonconsensual commercial use of a person’s picture for advertising or trade. The flyer attached to the complaint was not commercial advertising or trade. Even considering Satz’s later assertion that ORA used his picture on Facebook to solicit donations, the court held that he had not adequately alleged a commercial appropriation covered by those provisions. The court dismissed this claim.

Forged Document

The court held that forgery is a crime, not an independent civil cause of action. It also noted that Satz alleged that the individual signers, not ORA, provided the Psak Din to ORA and did not allege that ORA forged anything. The court dismissed the forgery claim against ORA.

False Light

The court held that New York law does not recognize a false-light invasion-of-privacy claim. Because the parties had proceeded under New York law, the court dismissed Satz’s false-light claim as not legally cognizable under that law.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

The court held that Satz had not alleged conduct sufficiently extreme and outrageous to meet New York’s strict standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Posting information about his divorce, accusing him of abuse, urging others not to associate with him, and attempting to persuade him to give his wife a Get did not meet that standard. The court dismissed this claim.

Civil Conspiracy

The court explained that New York does not recognize civil conspiracy as an independent tort. A conspiracy claim requires an underlying actionable tort. Because Satz failed to state any underlying actionable tort against ORA, the court dismissed the civil-conspiracy claim as well.

Disposition

The court granted ORA’s motion to dismiss. Satz had already dismissed his claims against the individual defendants, and the Clerk had terminated those defendants. The court directed the Clerk to terminate pending motions and close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal of ORA’s motion or any claim was with or without prejudice.