Choice of Law Bars Rapper's Defamation Case

Roxx missed the one-year statute of limitations of his home state Pennsylvania, for bringing a defamation case and, after his release from prison, opted instead to file his claims for libel and false light invasion of privacy in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, where plaintiffs are generally allowed a two-year window from the time a false report is published. He argued that the more lenient statute of limitations should apply because the claims arose in Delaware, where Roxx has been unable to book concerts and has been spurned by promoters, disc jockeys and radio shows.

But U.S. District Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark of the District of Delaware said Delaware choice of law rules prevented the court from using the two-year statute of limitations. Under the state's borrowing statute, judges are required to use the shorter of two state's conflicting statutes of limitations when a non-Delaware resident files suit based on causes of action that arose outside of Delaware. (10 Del. C. §8121 states: “Where a cause of action arises outside of this state, an action cannot be brought in a court of this State to enforce such a cause of action after the expiration of whichever is shorter, the time limited by the law of this State, or the time limited by the law of the state or country where the cause of action arose, for bringing an action upon such cause of action.”)

Judge Stark added: “To determine where a cause of action arises for purposes of the borrowing statute, Delaware's choice of law rules ask which state has the most significant relationship to the claims and to the parties. … While many factors can be included in this analysis, in a defamation case there is a presumption that 'the local law of the state of the plaintiff's domicile applies ….”

Judge Stark said that Roxx's alleged injuries were not specific to Delaware because he was experiencing similar troubles in a number if other states where he used to perform. And the harm Roxx purported to suffer had been most keenly felt in his home state.

“In particular,” Judge Stark observed, “Plaintiff has failed to show that Delaware has a more significant relationship than does Pennsylvania with either the occurrence underlying his claims or with the parties. Plaintiff fails to plead any unique injury in Delaware. Prior to the defamatory statements, Plaintiff toured 'throughout the country,' performed concerts in 17 different states, and 'built a following in diverse parts of the country, including the Northeast and Western United States.' He built a 'substantial fan base … in the Western United States and the East Coast.' Now, however, due to the defamatory statements, he is 'unable to book any concerts anywhere in the country, including in Delaware' and 'unable to generate any interest or book any concert events.' (emphases added) It follows that Plaintiff has (allegedly) been substantially injured across the United States, including particularly the Northeast, East Coast, Western United States, and Delaware. While all of this shows that Delaware is among the places where Plaintiff was injured, it does not show that his injury in Delaware was different — in kind, or in magnitude — than the injury he suffered in other parts of the country. There is nothing unique, or in any way 'more significant,' about the injury he suffered in Delaware than the injury he suffered in Pennsylvania.”

The “injuries are suffered most significantly in the place where plaintiff lives and spends most of his time: Pennsylvania,” the district judge concluded.

The complaint named fourteen media companies as defendants — a group that included Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., TMZ Productions, Barstool Sports, BET Interactive, Gannett Co., CBS Interactive Inc. and Viacom Inc.

*****
Tom McParland is a Staff Reporter with the Delaware Law Weekly, an ALM sibling of Entertainment Law & Finance.

A Delaware federal judge dismissed a defamation suit by a rapper formerly affiliated with the hip-hop group Wu-Tang Clan who claimed media outlets falsely reported that he attempted a grisly act of self-mutilation and attempted suicide. Johnson v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., 1:2016cv00185 (D. Del. 2017).

Marques Andre Johnson, known by the stage name Andre Roxx, had sued a contingent of media companies in March 2016, nearly two years after outlets incorrectly reported that he severed his penis and jumped out of a window while attending a party in California. In fact, Johnson, who had been associated with Wu-Tang's Killa Beez outfit, was serving a 16-month prison sentence in a Pennsylvania prison at the time. It turned out that another Wu-Tang affiliated rapper named Andre Johnson — known as Christ Bearer — had committed the gruesome act.

In his legal complaint, Roxx said the story “spread like wildfire” across the Internet and broadcast news, and exposed him to attacks and threats from inmates: “As a result of Defendants' reckless, egregious, and defamatory statements, [Plaintiff] was forced to go into protective custody because other inmates began threatening, harassing and attacking him.” Since his July 2015 release from prison, Roxx said he has been harassed online and ostracized by friends and potential romantic partners who fear being harassed in public. Roxx, who lives in Philadelphia, also said that the mishap has completely derailed his music career and prevented him from making a living.

Roxx missed the one-year statute of limitations of his home state Pennsylvania, for bringing a defamation case and, after his release from prison, opted instead to file his claims for libel and false light invasion of privacy in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, where plaintiffs are generally allowed a two-year window from the time a false report is published. He argued that the more lenient statute of limitations should apply because the claims arose in Delaware, where Roxx has been unable to book concerts and has been spurned by promoters, disc jockeys and radio shows.

But U.S. District Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark of the District of Delaware said Delaware choice of law rules prevented the court from using the two-year statute of limitations. Under the state's borrowing statute, judges are required to use the shorter of two state's conflicting statutes of limitations when a non-Delaware resident files suit based on causes of action that arose outside of Delaware. (10 Del. C. §8121 states: “Where a cause of action arises outside of this state, an action cannot be brought in a court of this State to enforce such a cause of action after the expiration of whichever is shorter, the time limited by the law of this State, or the time limited by the law of the state or country where the cause of action arose, for bringing an action upon such cause of action.”)

Judge Stark added: “To determine where a cause of action arises for purposes of the borrowing statute, Delaware's choice of law rules ask which state has the most significant relationship to the claims and to the parties. … While many factors can be included in this analysis, in a defamation case there is a presumption that 'the local law of the state of the plaintiff's domicile applies ….”

Judge Stark said that Roxx's alleged injuries were not specific to Delaware because he was experiencing similar troubles in a number if other states where he used to perform. And the harm Roxx purported to suffer had been most keenly felt in his home state.

“In particular,” Judge Stark observed, “Plaintiff has failed to show that Delaware has a more significant relationship than does Pennsylvania with either the occurrence underlying his claims or with the parties. Plaintiff fails to plead any unique injury in Delaware. Prior to the defamatory statements, Plaintiff toured 'throughout the country,' performed concerts in 17 different states, and 'built a following in diverse parts of the country, including the Northeast and Western United States.' He built a 'substantial fan base … in the Western United States and the East Coast.' Now, however, due to the defamatory statements, he is 'unable to book any concerts anywhere in the country, including in Delaware' and 'unable to generate any interest or book any concert events.' (emphases added) It follows that Plaintiff has (allegedly) been substantially injured across the United States, including particularly the Northeast, East Coast, Western United States, and Delaware. While all of this shows that Delaware is among the places where Plaintiff was injured, it does not show that his injury in Delaware was different — in kind, or in magnitude — than the injury he suffered in other parts of the country. There is nothing unique, or in any way 'more significant,' about the injury he suffered in Delaware than the injury he suffered in Pennsylvania.”

The “injuries are suffered most significantly in the place where plaintiff lives and spends most of his time: Pennsylvania,” the district judge concluded.

The complaint named fourteen media companies as defendants — a group that included Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., TMZ Productions, Barstool Sports, BET Interactive, Gannett Co., CBS Interactive Inc. and Viacom Inc.

*****
Tom McParland is a Staff Reporter with the Delaware Law Weekly, an ALM sibling of Entertainment Law & Finance.