Date: 04-10-2023

Case Style:

Jajed Khalil v. Fox Corporation and Lou Dobbs

Case Number: 1:21-cv-10248

Judge: Louis Lee Stanton

Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Defendant's Attorney: Robert Allen, Devin Anderson, Erin Elizabeth, Cady, Jennifer Lynn Bloom, Kenneth Wine Allen, Mark Robert Filip, Michael Bert Kruse, Paul D. Clement, Shawn Patrick Regan

Description: New York City, New York personal injury lawyers represented Plaintiff who sued defendant on a slander theory.


Plaintiff, a Venezuelan businessman, states that the Court has personal jurisdiction over Powell pursuant to CPLR § 302 for five reasons:

(i) Powell made the defamatory and disparaging statements at issue in the Complaint knowing and intending for them to be broadcast (verbal) and published (written/posted) from New York, New York by a New York-based organization; (ii) Powell authorized and approved the broadcasting and publication of her statements to be made from New York through a New York based news organization; (iii) Powell coordinated with New York based reporters and employees of Fox News regarding the disinformation campaign and her statements before appearing on the Fox News programs at issue in the Complaint; (iv) Powell used the disinformation campaign she operated through and with Fox and Dobbs to solicit money from individuals and corporations - including those located in New York, New York -for contributions to her so-called "legal defense" fund and Super PAC; and (v) Powell intentionally took advantage of New York's unique resources, including serving as the headquarters and publication center for Fox News, to disseminate the disinformation campaign and profit from the disinformation campaign. The Court also has personal jurisdiction over Powell pursuant to CPLR § 302 as a coconspirator with Fox and Dobbs, both of whom committed tortious acts in New York.
Khalil v. Fox Corp. (S.D. N.Y. 2022)

Plaintiff's defamation claims against defendant Powell arise out of statements Powell made while appearing remotely on a broadcast of the Lou Dobbs Tonight show that aired on Fox News on December 10, 2020. Compl. ¶¶ 88-95. In her statements, Powell discussed alleged voting irregularities and fraud arising from the use of electronic voting platforms marketed and operated by Dominion Voting Systems ("Dominion") and Smartmatic Corporation ("Smartmatic"). Id. at ¶¶ 1, 4, 18, 20, 47-44, 86-109, 139-151. Plaintiff alleges that Powell disparaged plaintiff by falsely connecting him to Dominion and Smartmatic, as well as to their programs and machines, and by falsely alleging hrs involvement...
Khalil v. Fox Corp. (S.D. N.Y. 2022)


Defendant Powell argues that the claims against her must be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction since she is a Texas resident who does not transact business in New York, whose allegedly defamatory conduct did not occur in New York, and whose statements were in no manner specifically and purposefully directed or targeted toward residents of New York. See Df. Reply Br. at 1-2.

In March of 2022, the issue of personal jurisdiction over Ms. Powell arising from substantially similar substantive and jurisdictional facts was decided in favor of her dismissal in a related Smartmatic case brought in the New York Supreme Court. See Smartmatic USA Corp, v. Fox Corp., No. 151136/2021, 2022 WL 685407 at 47-53 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 08, 2022).

In that case, New York Supreme Court Justice Cohen, applying New York's long-arm statute, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(1),[1]as required in defamation cases, determined that Powell only had minimal and attenuated New York contacts that did not give rise to plaintiff's claims of defamation. Specifically, Justice Cohen found that there were no allegations that Powell came to New York personally to appear at the Fox News studios, no
Defendant Powell argues that the claims against her must be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction since she is a Texas resident who does not transact business in New York, whose allegedly defamatory conduct did not occur in New York, and whose statements were in no manner specifically and purposefully directed or targeted toward residents of New York. See Df. Reply Br. at 1-2.

In March of 2022, the issue of personal jurisdiction over Ms. Powell arising from substantially similar substantive and jurisdictional facts was decided in favor of her dismissal in a related Smartmatic case brought in the New York Supreme Court. See Smartmatic USA Corp, v. Fox Corp., No. 151136/2021, 2022 WL 685407 at 47-53 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 08, 2022).

In that case, New York Supreme Court Justice Cohen, applying New York's long-arm statute, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(1),[1]as required in defamation cases, determined that Powell only had minimal and attenuated New York contacts that did not give rise to plaintiff's claims of defamation. Specifically, Justice Cohen found that there were no allegations that Powell came to New York personally to appear at the Fox News studios, no.
allegations that her utterance was specifically targeted at New York residents (given that Fox News is broadcasted across the country and plaintiffs did not reside in New York), and that despite allegations that Powell solicited online financial contributions from New York residents, the solicitations did not constitute a sufficient transaction of business in New York and did not give rise to plaintiffs*' defamation claims. See Smartmatic USA Corp., 2022 WL 685407 at 47-53. Additionally, plaintiffs' allegation that there was jurisdiction over Powell because she participated in a conspiracy with the New York-based Fox News defendants also failed, since the conspiracy theory of jurisdiction is not available under Section 302(a) (1), which is for business transactions, not torts. Id. at 51 (citing Suber v. VVP Servs., LLC, No. 20-CV-08177 (AJN), 2021 WL 4429237, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2021)). On that basis, Justice Cohen dismissed the claims against Powell for lack of personal jurisdiction.



Dobbs and Fox had only one defense to the allegations being made against them, they apparently did not have, which is "Truth."

?Libel and slander are both forms of defamation, which is the act of making a false statement about someone that damages their reputation. The main difference between libel and slander is the form of communication used to make the statement. Libel is defamation that is made in writing, while slander is defamation that is made orally.

To be considered defamatory, a statement must meet the following criteria:

It must be false.
It must be about a person or entity.
It must be communicated to a third party.
It must damage the person or entity's reputation.

If a statement meets all of these criteria, it can be considered libel or slander, depending on the form of communication used.

Libel

Libel is defamation that is made in writing. This can include anything that is printed, published, or electronically transmitted. For example, a libelous statement could be made in a newspaper article, a blog post, a social media post, or an email.

Slander

Slander is defamation that is made orally. This can include anything that is said out loud, such as a spoken statement, a phone call, or a conversation in a public place.

Damages

If a person is found to have been defamed, they may be entitled to damages. The amount of damages will vary depending on the severity of the defamation, the impact it had on the person's reputation, and other factors.

Defenses

There are a number of defenses that can be used to defend against a defamation claim. These defenses include:

Truth: If the statement made is true, it is not defamatory.
Opinion: If the statement made is an opinion, it is not defamatory, as long as it is not stated as fact.
Fair comment: If the statement made is a fair comment on a matter of public interest, it is not defamatory.
Privilege: If the statement made is made in a privileged context, such as in a court of law or in a legislative body, it is not defamatory.

Conclusion

Libel and slander are serious legal matters. If you are accused of defamation, it is important to speak with an attorney to discuss your options."

Google Bard

Outcome: Settled for an undisclosed sum.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: