Decision Yahoo Lottery

8/7/2019 Decision Yahoo Lottery

1/7

, ;:: =lJSO( ' l t ~ 'v0, 1\. 't 'f\., ;' "qEL["'" ; ,\ -i'"'' Ai-LY PlLBlJ(Jue 1#NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE PILED- IJi,/ /lJ------xYAHOO, INC., I I08 Civ. 4581 (LTS) (THK)

Pla in t i f f ,

-aga ins t (PRO SE)DAIANN NAKCHAN, e t a l . ,

Defendants .----- ------ ----- --x

TO: HON. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.FROM: THEODORE H. KATZ, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Pla in t i f f Yahoo, Inc. br ings t h i s ac t ion claiming, i n t e rt rademark infr ingement , coun te r fe i t ing , fa lse s igna t ion of

gin, and di lu t ion , a r i s ing out of a conspiracy involvingdefendants around the world who deceived i n t e rne t users in tobel ieving t ha t they had won a l o t t e ry or ze o f by Yahoo.Present ly before the Court i s P l a i n t i f f ' s motion to dismiss thecounterclaim of Defendant Emmanuel C. On ("Onyema"). For thereasons t ha t follow the Court recommends t ha t P l a i n t i f f ' s motion begran ted .

DISCUSSIONIn an Order, dated October 13, 2010, the Di s t r i c t Court

gran ted P l a i n t i f f ' s motion fo r judgment on the p leadings andd i ssed Onyema's counterclaims hout prejudice to ading.The Order gave Onyema u n t i l November 15, 2010 to replead h is

Case 1:08-cv-04581-LTS -THK Document 97 Filed 01/11/11 Page 1 of 7


2/7

counterclaims, and s pe c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d t ha t " [ i ] f no t y answerwi th coun te rc l i s f i l e d and served by November 15, 2010,Onyema's counte aims w i l l be smissed with judice withoutfu r the r no t i ce . " Onyema did not f i l e h is Amended Answer andCounterclaim u n t i l November 16, 2010. Docket Entry # 80.)PIa i f f now seeks the dismiss of the counterclaim arguing (1 )the counterc la im i s unt imely , and (2 ) it f a i l s to s t a t e a claim fo rr e I f . (See Memorandum of Law in Suppor t of PIa iff's Motion toDismiss th e Counterclaim of Defendant Emmanuel C. Onyema and Stayof Discovery ( "P l . ' s Mem.).) Onyema has not responded to themotion.

Although Onyema's amended answer and counterclaim i s , iunt imely , in view of f ac t t ha t (1) it was l a t e by only one day,(2 ) Onyema i s proceeding pro se , (3) P l a i n t i f f has notpre jud i by th e delay , the Court wi l l address the counterclaim oni t s me s .I . Motion to Dismiss Standard

In id ing a mot to dismiss under Rule 12 (b) (6) , a cour t"must as t rue a l l of the 1 a l l e g a t i o n s s e t out in[the] p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint , draw infe rences from t e a l l ega t ionsin the 1 most favorab le to [ the] p i n t i f f , const ruecomplaint 1 l l y . " Roth v. Jennings , 48 9 F.3d 499, 510 (2d Cir .2007) (quot Gregory v. Daly, 243 F. 687, 691 (2d Cir . 2001)) ;

2



3/7

~ ~ ~ : : : . . . ! . ! . ~ ~ = - . . . . . . . : - = - - . = : . . : : ! . . . ! . . . - . : ~ . . . . : : : : . ; : , : ~ ~ , 287 F. 3d 138, 145 (2 d Cir . 2002). "This i s espec ia l ly t rue when deal ing with .121:Q. se complain tsa l ing c I r igh t s l a t i o n s . " Weixel, 287 F.3d a t 146.Notwiths tanding lowances t ha t cour ts make r pro se l i t i g a n t s ,however, they are not exempt from the usua l pleading requirements .See Graham v. Knebel, No. 08 Civ. 4363 (LAP), 2009 WL 4334382, a t*2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2009).

Supreme Cour t ' s decis ion in Bel l At lan t i c Corp. v.Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 ,127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007) , adds a "p laus l i t ys tandard , " in evaluat the suf f i c i ency o f a complaint , which i sguided by "[ t ]wo working pr inc ip l e s . " Ashcrof t v. Iqba l , U.S.

, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); see also Harr i s v. Mil l s , 572F.3d 66, 72 (2d Ci r . 2009) ; B i l e l l o v. J .P . Morgan Chase Ret. Plan ,No. 07 Civ. 7379 (DLC), 2009 WL 2461005, a t *5-6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12,2009). "rst , t e ne t t ha t a cour t must accept as t rue I o fthe a l l ega t ions conta ined in a complain t i s inapp l i cab le to l e g a lconc lus ions . Threadbare r e c i t a l s of elements of a cause o fac t ion , supported by mere conclusory s ta tements , do not su f f i ce . "Iqbal , 129 S. Ct. a t 1949; see a l so Harr i s , 372 F.3d a t 72."Second, only a complain t t h a t s t a t e s a p laus ib cla im fo r r e l i e fsurv ives a motion to d ismiss , " and " [d]e termining whether acompla s t a t e s a plaus ib l e cla im fo r r e l i e f wi l l be acontex t - spec i f i c t a sk t ha t requires the reviewing cour t to draw on

3



4/7

i t s j ud i c i a l experience and common sense . " Iqbal , 129 S. Ct. a t1950.

For a plead ing to su a motion to dismiss , it must"conta in su f f i c i en t fac tua l mat te r , accepted as t rue , to ' s t a t e aclaim to r e l i e f t ha t i s s Ie on i t s f ace . ' " a t 1949(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. a t 570, 127 S. Ct. a t 1973-74). "Fac 1p l aus i b i l i t y" e x i s t s when a" a i f f pleads fac tua l conten t tallows the cour t to draw reasonable inference t

i s l i ab l e fo r the misconduct a l l eged . " (c i t ing550 U.S. a t 556, 127 S. Ct. a t 1965); see also

No. 06 Civ. 4156 (KMW) (JCF), 2009 WL 3401256, a t *3 (S.D.N.Y.Oct. 22, 2009).I I . Fai lure to S ta te a Claim fo r Rel ie f

In s counterclaim, Onyema a s s e r t s t ha t the Complaint in t h i sact ion l se ly accuses him of engaging spam and fraudwithout any cause . Onyema cla ims t ha t a iff's ac t ion aga ins thim i s 1 and has se r ious ly i ured h is r epu ta t ion in thecommunity.

Under New York law, a claim fo r de ion, which can bee i t he r s lander ( i f spoken) or l i be l ( i f wr en) , must a l l ege

(1) a fa l se s ta tement about the ] ; (2)publ ished to a th i rd par ty without author iza t ion orpr iv i l e ge ; (3) through f a u l t amount to a t l eas tnegl igence on [ the] pa r t of the pub l i sher ; (4) t ha te i t he r cons t defamat ion p er se or caused 1

4



5/7

a l

damages. A s ta tement tend[sJ to i n ju re anot r inh is or he r t r ade , bus ss or p ro fe s s ion i s oryper se . A plead ing asse r t ing a cause of ac t ion fordefamation i s only s f i c i en t i f it adequately n t i f sth e purported communication, and an ind ica t ion of whomade the communication, when was made, and to whomwas communicated.

669 F. Supp. 2d 405, 411(S.D.N.Y. 2009) ( footnotes and 1 quota t ion marks ) ;~ = = = = Gargiu lo v. Fors te r & Garbus Esgs . , 651 F. Supp. 2d 188, 192(S.D.N.Y. 2009);

Rather than ident i fy ing par t i cu l a r s tatement t i sto be l i be lous , and by whom was made, Onyema appears to

premise h is counterclaim on the n t as a whole as it p e r tto him, a t ha t i t s a s s e r t t he, among o ther s , ein t k in f r ingement and f a l s e s igna t ion of orig in oni n t e rn e t i s 1 l ous . The counte does not s t a t e a claim fo rr e l i e f cause "[a ] s ta tement made in the course of l ega lproceedings i s absolu te ly priv i leged i f it i s a t a l l per t inen t tothe liti ion./I Lacher v. Engel, 33 A.D.3d 10, 13, 817 N.Y.S.2d37, 40 (1st ' t 2006) (c i t ing Youmans v. Smith, 153 N.Y. 214,219, 47 N.E. 265, 266 (1897); accord 651 F. Supp. 2d a t192 n.4; 532 F. Supp. 2d 586, 593-94 (S.D.N.Y.

5

http:///reader/full/N.Y.S.2dhttp:///reader/full/N.Y.S.2d


6/7


7/7

8 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir . 1989).

Respec t fu l ly Submit ted ,

THEODORE H. KATZUNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

January 11, 2011New York, New York

7


Decision Yahoo Lottery

Documents