Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
JOESPH FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al. - 66411988 Motion to Dismiss

JOESPH FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al. - 66411988 Motion to Dismiss

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,750 |Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on Sep 26, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/26/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JOSEPH FARAH, JEROME CORSI,WORLDNETDAILY.COM, and WNDBOOKS,Plaintiffs,vs.ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., HEARSTCOMMUNICATIONS, INC. and MARKWARREN,Defendants.Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-001179 (RMC)
DEFENDANTS HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.’S AND MARK WARREN’SMEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF SPECIALMOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO DISMISS THE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
Laura Handman (D.C. Bar No. 444386)John Rory Eastburg (D.C. Bar No. 984434)Davis Wright Tremaine LLP1919 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 800Washington, D.C. 20006-3402(202) 973-4200(202) 973-4499 (fax)laurahandman@dwt.comJonathan R. Donnellan (pro hac vice pending)Kristina E. Findikyan (pro hac vice pending)Hearst CorporationOffice of General Counsel300 W. 57th Street, 40th FloorNew York, NY 10019(212) 649-2020(212) 649-2035 (fax) jdonnellan@hearst.comkfindikyan@hearst.com
 Attorneys for Defendants Hearst Communications, Inc. and Mark Warren
Case 1:11-cv-01179-RMC Document 4-1 Filed 08/26/11 Page 1 of 57
 
 
-ii-TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... ivINTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1FACTUAL BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................5ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................13I.
 
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE SUBJECT TO AN ANTI-SLAPP MOTION ASWELL AS A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM. .............13A.
 
The District of Columbia Anti-SLAPP Statute Broadly Applies toClaims that Target the Exercise of Free Speech About Issues of Public Interest. .......................................................................................................13B.
 
Plaintiffs’ Claims Fall Within the Scope of the Anti-SLAPP Statute. ..................15C.
 
The Act Offers Substantive Protections That Apply in a Diversity Action ...........18D. Even Outside the Anti-SLAPP Context, Dismissal for Failure to State aClaim is “Particularly Appropriate” for Suits that Target Protected Speech .........21II.
 
PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM AND CANNOT ESTABLISH THATTHEIR CLAIMS ARE
 LIKELY 
TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS ................................22A.
 
Plaintiffs Have No Cognizable Defamation Claim ................................................231.
 
The Blog Post Is Satire, Which Is Fully Protected By theFirst Amendment .......................................................................................23a. The history and function of satire ..................................................24b. The long history of protection for satire ........................................26c. Esquire’s Blog Post clearly is protected satire ...............................312.
 
The Update and Warren Statement Are Opinion and Fair Comment ........33B.
 
Plaintiffs’ Other Claims Fail As A Matter of Law ................................................351. Plaintiffs’ False Light Claim Fails for the Same Reasons asTheir Defamation Claim ............................................................................352. Plaintiffs’ Invasion of Privacy (Misappropriation) Claim IsBarred By the First Amendment ................................................................36
Case 1:11-cv-01179-RMC Document 4-1 Filed 08/26/11 Page 2 of 57
 
 
-iii-3.
 
Plaintiffs’ Fail to State a Claim for Tortious Interference .........................39III.
 
PLAINTIFFS’ LANHAM ACT CLAIM SHOULD BE DISMISSED PURSUANTTO RULE 12(B)(6) FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM............................................42CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................45
Case 1:11-cv-01179-RMC Document 4-1 Filed 08/26/11 Page 3 of 57

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
GeorgetownJD added this note
Excellent.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->