Indigenous People of Biafra v. Sheehan

643 F.Supp.3d 140

INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF BIAFRA, Plaintiff, v. Ivan Sascha SHEEHAN, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 21-2743 (RBW)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

Signed November 30, 2022

Bruce Fein, Fein & DelValle PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Catherine Anne Bledsoe, Office of the Attorney General, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant Ivan Sascha Sheehan.

Mark H. M. Sosnowsky, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant Washington Times, LLC.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

REGGIE B. WALTON, United States District Judge

The plaintiff, Indigenous People of Biafra, brings this civil action against the defendants, Ivan Sheehan and The Washington Times, LLC ("The Times"), see Complaint ("Compl.") at 1, ECF No. 1, asserting common law claims of defamation, see id. ¶¶ 27-110. Currently pending before the Court are (1) Sheehan's motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6), see Motion by Defendant Ivan Sascha Sheehan To Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint ("Sheehan's Mot." or "Sheehan's motion") at 1, ECF No. 13; (2) The Times's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), see Defendant The Washington Times, LLC's Motion to Dismiss ("The Times's Mot." or "The Times's motion") at 1, ECF No. 14; and (3) the plaintiff's two motions for leave to file supplemental authorities, see Plaintiff's Motion to Submit Supplemental Authority ("Pl.'s 1st Supp. Auth. Mot.") at 1, ECF No. 19; Plaintiff's Motion to Submit Supplemental Authority ("Pl.'s 2d Supp. Auth. Mot.") at 1, ECF No. 20. Upon careful consideration of the parties' submissions,¹ the Court concludes for the following reasons that it must grant The Times's motion to the extent that it seeks dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1); deny as moot The Times's motion to the extent that it seeks dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6); sua sponte dismiss the claims against Sheehan pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1); and deny as moot the plaintiff's two motions for leave to file supplemental authorities.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

The plaintiff is a "[c]ommunity [i]nterest [c]ompany[,]" registered in the United Kingdom and "headquartered in London," whose "mission is to secure a sovereignty referendum on Biafra² to be organized and conducted by the United Nations by peaceful means." Compl. ¶ 4. On October 4, 2021, The Times, "a newspaper company published in Washington, D.C.[,]" id. ¶ 7, published an Op-Ed by Sheehan ("the Article"),³ id. ¶ 8, "the executive director of the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Baltimore[,]" id. ¶ 5, titled "U[nited States] ignores small African terrorist group at its peril[,]" id. ¶ 8. In the article, see Sheehan's Mot., Exhibit ("Ex.") A (Sheehan, U.S. ignores small African terrorist group IPOB at its peril, Wash Times (Oct. 4, 2021) ("Article")) at 1, ECF No. 13-3, Sheehan argues that the "State Department needs to designate [the plaintiff] as a foreign terrorist organization[,]" id. at 2, and makes multiple claims regarding "violent [ ] attacks" allegedly carried out by the plaintiff, id. at 5. According to the plaintiff, "[t]he article contained [seven] defamatory falsehoods about [the plaintiff that were] published with ill will and with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard [for] whether they were true[.]" Compl. ¶ 9. These purported "defamatory falsehoods [allegedly] subjected [the plaintiff] to professional and social ostracism and curtailment of its ability to attract members and donations[,]" id. ¶ 26, as well as "damage to [the p]laintiff's reputation in an amount to be proven at trial[,]" id. ¶¶ 29, 33, 37, 41, 45, 49, 53, 57, 61, 65, 69, 73, 77, 81, 85, 89, 93, 97, 101, 105, 109.

B. Procedural History

On October 17, 2021, the plaintiff filed its Complaint in this case, see Compl. at 16, asserting twenty-one counts of defamation, see id. ¶¶ 27-110. On December 14, 2021, both defendants filed their motions to dismiss. See The Times's Mot. at 1; Sheehan's Mot. at 2. On January 10, 2022, the plaintiff filed its oppositions to both motions. See Pl.'s Opp'n to The Times at 1; Pl.'s Opp'n to Sheehan at 1. On January 25, 2022, Sheehan filed his reply in support of his motion, see Sheehan's Reply at 1, and on January 18, 2022, The Times filed its reply in support of its motion, see The Times's Reply at 1.

On March 11, 2022, the plaintiff filed its first motion for leave to file supplemental authority in support of its opposition to the motions to dismiss, which constituted a copy of what it represents is a "defamation opinion issued by the Supreme Court of New York on March 8, 2022," in "Smartmatic U.S. Corp. v. Fox Corporation[.]" Pl.'s 1st Supp. Auth. Mot. at 1.⁴ On August 13, 2022, the plaintiff filed its second motion for leave to file additional supplemental authority, which constituted a copy of "a July 20, 2022[ ] Opinion of the United Nations Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention[.]" Pl.'s 2d Supp. Auth. Mot. at 1; see id., Ex. 1 (Hum. Rts. Council, Working Grp. on Arbitrary Det., Op. No. 25/2022 concerning Mr. Nwannekaenyi Nnamdi Kenny Okwu-Kanu (Nigeria and Kenya), U.N. Doc. A/HRC/WGAD/2022/25 (July 20, 2022)) at 1, ECF No. 20-1. On August 29, 2022, both defendants filed oppositions to the plaintiff's second motion for leave to file supplemental authority. See Sheehan's Supp. Auth. Opp'n at 1; The Times's Supp. Auth. Opp'n at 1.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, see Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994), and therefore, "[a] motion for dismissal under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 12(b)(1) 'presents a threshold challenge to the [C]ourt's jurisdiction[,]' " Morrow v. United States, 723 F. Supp. 2d 71, 75 (D.D.C. 2010) (Walton, J.) (quoting Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). Thus, the Court is obligated to dismiss a claim if it "lack[s] [ ] subject-matter jurisdiction[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). And, because "it is to be presumed that a cause lies outside [ ] [the Court's] limited jurisdiction," Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, "the plaintiff bears the burden of pro[ving]" that the Court has jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims, Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). Additionally, "subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and . . . courts may raise the issue sua sponte." Poblete v. U.S. Marshals Service, 207 F. Supp. 3d 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2016), quoting NetworkIP, LLC v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116, 120 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted). "Indeed, a federal court must raise the issue[.]" Poblete, 207 F. Supp.3d at 2.

In deciding a motion to dismiss based upon a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court "need not limit itself to the allegations of the complaint." Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Ord. of Police v. Ashcroft, 185 F. Supp. 2d 9, 14 (D.D.C. 2001). Rather, the "[C]ourt may consider such materials outside the pleadings as it deems appropriate to resolve the question [of] whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case." Scolaro v. D.C. Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 104 F. Supp. 2d 18, 22 (D.D.C. 2000); see also Jerome Stevens Pharms., Inc. v. Food & Drug Admin., 402 F.3d 1249, 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Additionally, the Court must "assume the truth of all material factual allegations in the complaint and 'construe the complaint liberally, granting [the] plaintiff the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged[.]' " Am. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 642 F.3d 1137, 1139 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Thomas v. Principi, 394 F.3d 970, 972 (D.C. Cir. 2005)). However, "the [p]laintiff's factual allegations in the complaint . . . will bear closer scrutiny in resolving a 12(b)(1) motion than in resolving a 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim." Grand Lodge, 185 F. Supp. 2d at 13-14 (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

III. ANALYSIS

The Court will first consider The Times's motion to dismiss, before addressing Sheehan's motion to dismiss.⁵ For the following reasons, the Court will grant The Times's motion to the extent that it seeks dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1); deny as moot The Times's motion to the extent that it seeks dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6); deny as moot Sheehan's motion to dismiss; and deny as moot the plaintiff's two motions for leave to file supplemental authorities.

A. The Times's Motion to Dismiss

The Times argues that the Court "should dismiss [the] Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of [s]ubject[-m]atter jurisdiction because [the p]laintiff cannot satisfy the amount[-]in[-]controversy requirements of diversity jurisdiction." The Times's Mem. at 7 (capitalization omitted). The plaintiff argues in response that it has met the amount-in-controversy requirement due to (1) "the financial death penalty IPOB would suffer, if as [the d]efendant and [sic] states and argues, IPOB is listed by the Secretary of State as a foreign terrorist organization[,]" Pl.'s Opp'n to The Times at 14-15, which "clearly exceeds $75,000 in value," id. at 15, as "[i]t would prohibit any material assistance to IPOB indefinitely[,]" id.; and (2) punitive damages, see id. The Court agrees with The Times that it lacks jurisdiction over the plaintiff's Complaint.

"Diversity jurisdiction requires an amount-in-controversy exceeding $75,000 and . . . a dispute between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state." BYD Co. Ltd. v. All. for Am. Mfg., 554 F. Supp. 3d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2021) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)). "In determining whether an action meets" the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), "the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith." Bronner v. Duggan, 364 F. Supp. 3d 9, 17 (D.D.C. 2019) (citations omitted). Although "a plaintiff need not provide an...