Hodges v. Lutwin

595 F.Supp.3d 12

Jamie HODGES and On The Move Ltd., Plaintiffs,

v.Molly Kathleen LUTWIN et al., Defendants.

20-cv-9878(ALC)

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed March 31, 2022

Adam Brad Sherman, Tom M. Fini, Catafago Fini LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Thomas Anthony Catalano, Lester, Schwab, Katz and Dwyer LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants Molly Kathleen Lutwin, Francis Academy of Irish Dance.

Benjamin Rial Allee, Russell Marc Yankwitt, Yankwitt LLP, White Plains, NY, Thomas Anthony Catalano, Lester, Schwab, Katz and Dwyer LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant Irish Dancing Teachers Association of North America-Mid-Atlantic Region, Inc.

Benjamin Rial Allee, Russell Marc Yankwitt, Yankwitt LLP, White Plains, NY, for Defendants Keith L. Labis, James Early.

OPINION AND ORDER

ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., District Judge:

Plaintiffs Jamie Hodges and On The Move Ltd. bring this action against James Early, Irish Dancing Teachers Association of North America Mid-Atlantic Region, Inc. ("Mid-Atlantic Teachers"), Keith L. Labis, Esq. ("Mid-Atlantic Defendants"), Molly Kathleen Lutwin, and the Francis Academy of Irish Dance ("Lutwin Defendants"). Plaintiffs assert claims for defamation, defamation per se, and tortious interference with prospective business relations. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

When determining whether to dismiss a case, the court accepts as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Faber v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. , 648 F.3d 98, 104 (2d Cir. 2011). Furthermore, "[a] complaint is deemed to include any written instrument attached to it as an exhibit." Sira v. Morton , 380 F.3d 57, 67 (2d Cir. 2004) (citations omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c). The following facts, alleged in the Complaint and its attached exhibits, ECF Nos. 1–3, are thus assumed to be true for the purposes of this motion.

Plaintiff Hodges is a citizen of the United Kingdom who teaches Irish Dance and On the Move is his Irish Dance company, which is domiciled in the United Kingdom. Compl. ¶ 21. In November 2019, Plaintiff contacted Early, Regional Director of Mid-Atlantic Teachers, regarding the dance camp Hodges planned to run in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Id. ¶ 31. Mid-Atlantic Teachers is a regional chapter of the Irish Dance Teachers Association of North America, "the official body that offers Irish Dance instructors in the United States certification to teach Irish Dance." Id. ¶ 15. On November 18, 2019, Early granted Hodges permission to run his camp. Id. ¶ 33.

On November 24, 2019, Lutwin, a member of Mid-Atlantic Teachers and an Irish Dance teacher, emailed a written complaint to the Board of Mid-Atlantic Teachers. Id. ¶¶ 40–41. The complaint relayed an incident in which On the Move sent an obscene video to minor students of Lutwin via Instagram. Id. ¶ 41. In relevant part, the complaint stated:

There are two u14 girls in my school, Francis Academy of Irish Dance, who share and run an Instagram account for Irish Dancing. The girls were contacted by On the Move to promote their workshop and program by posting a video and pictures to the girls shared account. The girls agreed to upload the promotional video.

On the Move then sent them a video that was extremely inappropriate and disturbing. The video is of a visibly naked woman running towards a camera and jumping on it. The camera than reveals a cartoon or CGI baby within the private parts of the ... woman. It is shocking and difficult to describe.

The girls did not know what to do. They responded to On the Move that the video was inappropriate.

On the Move then apologized and told the girls that the account got hacked. The user then deleted the video off the message and then deleted the apology/"we've been hacked" message. My students saved the video before it was erased but the apology was not.

...

Accident or purposeful, these are grown adults working with young people, and mistakes like this cannot happen. This video was highly tasteless and sexual. As a mom, teacher, and female I would feel uncomfortable to have the members of On the Move to be associated with young teens and dancers.

I am very concerned as I have seen On the Move advertised on the MAR social media pages and I know that they will be at the upcoming Oireachtas. I don't know what can be done, but I don't believe that these young men should be around our dancers.

I would like to lodge a formal complaint to CLRG against Jamie and Mitchell Hodges and On the Move....

Id. ¶ 41.

The Complaint also attached screenshots of the Instagram conversation at issue; as Lutwin writes, neither the video nor the apology appear in the conversation. Id. Ex C, ECF No. 3-3.

The Complaint alleges that the weekend following Lutwin's complaint, Lutwin spoke with three individuals at an Irish Dance event about the incident, telling them that Plaintiff Hodges "sent sexual videos to two under 14 year old girls in my dance school." Id. ¶¶ 67–70. These three individuals reside in the United Kingdom; one runs an Irish Dance school, one is an Irish Dance performer, and one sells Irish Dance merchandise. Id.

On January 3, 2020, an Irish media outlet reached out to Hodges about the incident. Id. ¶¶ 75–78.

On January 26, 2020, the Mid-Atlantic Teachers held a meeting for its members, Irish Dance teachers who teach in the Mid-Atlantic region. During that meeting, Early read Lutwin's complaint. Id. ¶¶ 83, 84, 88, 91. Afterwards, a member asked whether Lutwin's complaint was reported to law enforcement. Id. Ex. I, ECF No. 3-7. Labis, a lawyer for Mid-Atlantic Teachers, responded that the complaint was reported to the authorities. Id. ¶ 97. On January 27, 2020, Early informed Plaintiffs that the approval of their Irish Dance camp was rescinded. Id. ¶¶ 107–08.

Plaintiffs deny sending the video and allege that Lutwin's complaint was fabricated. Id. ¶¶ 43, 50. The Complaint alleges that Early and Labis knew the complaint was fabricated. Id. ¶ 102. Additionally, Plaintiffs assert that at the time of Mid-Atlantic Teachers meeting, the Mid-Atlantic Defendants knew that the local authorities and the global Irish Dancing governing commission had both concluded their respective investigations with no findings of wrongdoing. Id. ¶¶ 79–82, 102.¹

It also alleges that Early, Labis, and Lutwin acted with malice and sought to "destroy the Plaintiffs’ reputations." E.g., id. ¶¶ 50, 103. As motivation for the defamation, Plaintiffs allege that Lutwin and Early were competitors of Plaintiffs. Specifically, the Complaint states that Lutwin received referral fees for sending her students to a summer camp that competes with the summer camp Plaintiffs intended to run. Id. ¶¶ 37, 38, 51. The Complaint alleges that Early had a conflict of interest because he both owned an Irish Dance school and was charged with approving the Irish Dance programs as head of Mid-Atlantic Teachers, and he served as an Irish Dance judge at a summer camp that would compete with Plaintiffs’ summer camp. Id. ¶¶ 27–28.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs initiated this action on November 23, 2020. ECF No. 1. On March 8 and March 18, 2021, Defendants filed their motions to dismiss. ECF Nos. 30 and 32. On April 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their opposition papers. ECF No. 37–40. On April 26, 2021, Defendants filed their reply memoranda in support of their motions to dismiss. ECF Nos. 46–47.

LEGAL STANDARD

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must "assume all ‘well-pleaded factual allegations’ to be true, and ‘determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.’ " Selevan v. New York Thruway Auth. , 584 F.3d 82, 88 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ). Allegations that are "no more than conclusions[ ] are not entitled to the assumption of truth," and " ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement’ " or "the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s]" are not sufficient to show that a plaintiff is entitled to relief. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678–79, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). Nor must a court accept as true "legal conclusions" or "a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Id. "We include in this analysis not only the assertions made within the four corners of the complaint itself, but also those contained in documents attached to the pleadings or in documents incorporated by reference." Gregory v. Daly , 243 F.3d 687, 691 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Austin v. Ford Models, Inc. , 149 F.3d 148, 152 (2d Cir. 1998) ).

DISCUSSION

I. Defamation

A. Qualified Privilege

Defendants argue that the Complaint fails to state a defamation claim because the allegedly defamatory statements are subject to the common interest privilege. The Court agrees.

To establish a claim for defamation under New York law, a plaintiff is required to demonstrate "a false statement, published without privilege or authorization to a third party, constituting fault ... and it must either cause special harm or constitute defamation per se." Peters v. Baldwin Union Free Sch. Dist. , 320 F.3d 164, 169–70 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted). New York law grants a qualified "common interest" privilege to "defamatory communications made by one person to another upon a subject in which both have an interest." Meloff v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co. , 240 F.3d 138, 146 (2d Cir. 2001). Furthermore, a statement is considered privileged "when it is fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty, legal or moral." Chandok v. Klessig , 632 F.3d 803, 814 (2d Cir. 2011). "The rationale for applying the privilege in these circumstances is that so long as the privilege is not abused, the flow of...