Summary
This memorandum opinion and order resolves two motions to dismiss in a diversity jurisdiction case alleging defamation and tortious barratry. The court denies the defendant's motion to dismiss the defamation claim, concluding that the complaint sufficiently pleads defamation per se and actual malice, which precludes immunity under Virginia's Anti-SLAPP statute. Conversely, the court grants the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the counterclaim, holding that tortious barratry is not recognized as a private civil cause of action under Virginia law.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court has subject‑matter jurisdiction over the defamation claim.
- Whether the complaint states a claim for defamation under Virginia law.
- Whether the counterclaim for tortious barratry is cognizable under Virginia law.
Holdings
- The court finds subject‑matter jurisdiction exists because diversity jurisdiction is satisfied.
- The complaint sufficiently alleges defamation per se, actual malice, and overcomes the Anti‑SLAPP defense; the motion to dismiss is denied.
- Virginia law does not provide a private cause of action for tortious barratry; the counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice.
Key quotations
“For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant/Counterclaimant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim (ECF 13) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF 20) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant/Counterclaimant’s Counterclaim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.” (at end)
Factual background
Yaacov Apelbaum, founder of XRVision, Ltd., sued journalist Jordan Arthur Bloom for allegedly false statements calling Apelbaum an Israeli spy. Bloom published two articles asserting the allegations and refused to retract them. Bloom also filed a counterclaim alleging tortious barratry.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs filed a defamation complaint on Jan. 28, 2025. Defendant filed a counterclaim for tortious barratry and motions to dismiss both claims. The court set aside a default, and both motions were fully briefed and are now resolved.