McGillvary v. Grande

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted Defendant Todd Grande’s motion to dismiss Caleb L. McGillvary’s amended complaint. The court held that the complaint failed to state claims for defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, Lanham Act violations, and RICO violations. The court denied as moot the motion to quash service and set a deadline for any motion seeking leave to amend.

Holdings

1. The amended complaint failed to state a defamation claim because most statements in the video were opinions or characterizations incapable of defamatory meaning, the alleged statements were not plausibly shown to injure Plaintiff's reputation, and Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege actual malice as a limited-purpose public figure.
2. The amended complaint failed to state a claim for invasion of privacy because Plaintiff's history and characteristics were matters of legitimate public concern, and information discussed in open court proceedings would not have remained private.
3. The amended complaint failed to plausibly allege the extreme and outrageous conduct required for an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim.
4. The amended complaint failed to state a Lanham Act claim because it did not plausibly allege that viewers were likely to believe Plaintiff approved or was affiliated with the creation or posting of the video.
5. The amended complaint failed to state a RICO claim because it did not plausibly allege, at minimum, a RICO enterprise in fact and racketeering activity.
6. The motion to quash attempted service of the amended complaint was denied as moot after dismissal of the amended complaint.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint plausibly stated a Delaware defamation claim based on Defendant's YouTube video.
2. Whether the amended complaint plausibly stated a Delaware invasion-of-privacy claim based on publication of allegedly private information.
3. Whether the amended complaint plausibly stated a Delaware intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim.
4. Whether the amended complaint plausibly stated a Lanham Act claim based on an alleged likelihood that viewers would believe Plaintiff approved or was affiliated with the video.
5. Whether the amended complaint plausibly stated a RICO claim by alleging an enterprise, a pattern of racketeering activity, and resulting injury.

Disposition

dismissed