COMMUNITY


US court dismisses INOC’s $100 m. Sonia defamation suit

Indo-Asian News Service

Washington, DC: A New Jersey court has dismissed a $100 million defamation suit filed by the Indian National Overseas Congress (INOC) for allegedly maligning Congress president Sonia Gandhi, saying it has no locus standi to claim damages.
The defamation case arose from a full-page advertisement in the New York Times
leveling several charges against Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul Gandhi during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) chairperson’s visit to the UN.
Monmouth County Superior Court Judge Patricia DelBueno Cleary on August 15 dismissed the case holding that INOC was not the proper party and did not have the locus standi to bring a claim of defamation because none of the statements were of or about it, Satyanarayana Dospati, one of the defendants, said.
INOC was not immediately available for comment.
INOC had filed two separate cases relating to the advertisement, one in New Jersey and another in New York seeking $100 million in actual, compensatory, and punitive damages in addition to costs and disbursements, legal fees and other relief that the court might consider proper.
The defendants in the New Jersey case were the Hindu International Council Against Defamation, Mahatma Gan-dhi International Founda-tion, Hindu International Council Against Defamation, Mahatma Gandhi Center and Hindu Temple, Naresh Sharma, Satyanarayana Dospati and Sunanda Thali whose names appeared on the Advertisement.
The case in New York was filed against Narain Kataria and Arish Sahani of “Forum for Saving Gandhi’s Heritage” whose names appeared in the advertisement.
Both INOC and defendants in the case filed in New York have already filed written submissions and oral arguments are scheduled for October 2.
Forum for Gandhi Heritage adds:
“The Forum for Gandhi Heritage, on behalf of all the defendants would like to express their appreciation and gratitude for the fairness of judicial system of this great country, the United States, in protecting the rights of its citizens. It is our dream, that one day in India, people can speak openly and be able to bring to justice the corrupt politicians without having to worry about reprisals and repercussions.”
Marc Haefner is the attorney for the defendants. Andrew Miller is the attorney for the plaintiff — Indian National Overseas Congress Inc.
Following are the excerpts from the court transcript:
Haefner: So as I was saying, your honor, this is a case that allows us to examine first principles namely the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and questions of free speech and chilling free speech. In here, plaintiff’s goal has been to chill free speech through the filing of this lawsuit and now clearly through, as evidence by their opposition brief the desire to let discovery hang around so that they can attempt to make out their claim at great expense to my clients, whose offense, your honor, notably is publishing a political ad in the New York Times that people in India apparently found offensive.
Now, I would first like to take a moment to examine the applicable standard by looking at four cases very quickly for your honor, which I couldn’t extensively quote in the brief. And first I would like to address Printing Mart a case I am sure your honor is very familiar with. But that case, at 116, New Jersey at, pinpoint site, 767 through 768 says that in addition to alleging defamatory statements the complaint must allege, not somewhere down the road, but the complaint must allege facts sufficient to identify the defamer, the circumstances of publication, also the circumstances must show the statements are of or concerning the plaintiff. It must appear to a third person understood the statements to relate to the plaintiff. Again, this is a reference to what the complaint must contain, not a reference to what must be proved in order to avoid summary judgment or proceed to trial.
The Court: You know, what about the fact, do we have the right parties here?
Haefner: No, your honor, we don’t.
The Court: I’m really concerned about that.
Haefner: No we do not have the right parties here, your honor. And it’s clear from Printing Mart that the Supreme Court thinks having the right parties here is something that must be set out with specific facts in the complaint. You have to establish with factual contentions, your right to bring a defamation lawsuit, especially in a case like this, where it’s a question of people commenting on the political actions of others, people who are clearly public figures.
And this organization, this Indian National Overseas Congress is nowhere mentioned in the ad which is attached as Exhibit A to the complaint. None of the alleged defamatory statements refer to the INOC. That there is some relationship alleged between the INOC, a New York Corporation and the Indian Congress Party which is a political party, the largest political party in India and there is then some further relationship between the Indian Congress Party and Sonia Gandhi is not sufficient to state a case of action for defamation.
And the second case is that, not sufficient to have standing to state a claim for defamation. There’s a set of cases that very clearly go to that. The Appellate Division — I wish there were more to brief, from New Jersey law, but there are simply not a lot of cases. However, the Appellate Division did summarily note and then throw out the claims that have been brought by wives, whose husbands have been defamed, and said, clearly you know these wives, it’s not the test. You know – and if you accept INOC’s about this sort of - well we’ll prove that we lost something, because something bad was said about something of someone else?
Haefner: I query, am I going to be back in this Court when the caterer for the Indian National Overseas Congress Party says oh well, Indian National Overseas Congress, they cancelled all the events that they have scheduled and I had, I was going to be the one to cater those events, now I can’t because of this ad that ran.
That’s not a crazy hypothetical that I’ve offered your honor, that’s just one more step removed from the claim of defamation that’s being offered here. And it’s not a valid claim of defamation…
Miller:…What we said in our complaint and what we said in our opposing papers is that we intend to prove something very specific here. We intend to answer the question why was this advertisement published in the New York Times. Why in America…
The Court: You still haven’t answered my question. Why are, why should I allow this case to go on? This is not, you don’t have the right parties here. I don’t think so…
Miller: Well we do, your honor, because we intend to prove, we believe unquestionably that the reason for this advertisement was published was not to attack an entity in India per se but to attack specifically the Indian National Congress Party of America here. It’s operations here, because it was published here. If you want to attack the aspect of the party that’s operating in India you publish there, you know publish there.
Their purpose was to attack the arm of the party, that operates here in the United States and specifically our affidavit from our clients specifically says they achieved that. And they cost them at least $200,000 in lost donations and support to his party because of this. And this is why they did it. They were very successful in doing it, they used the prestige and the power of the New York Times, specifically to go after the parties attempt to generate support in the United States and they achieved there. We intend to prove that. We agree that if at the end of discovery there’s insufficient evidence to prove that that’s what they were doing, some other party should be here. But we are very comfortable and confident that this can and will be done.
The Court: Thank you.
Now this matter comes before the Court on motion by the defendants to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 4:6-2. The plaintiff the Indian National Overseas Congress, hereinafter INOC has filed an action alleging that an advertisement placed in the New York Times on October 6th, 2007 was defamatory and seeks damages.
The plaintiff alleges that the advertisement defames Sonia Gandhi and her son. Now Sonia Gandhi is the chairwoman of the Indian National Congress Party which appears – and that’s the INCP, which appears to be a political party situated in India, which to me is a separate and distinct entity, different than the plaintiff.
The plaintiff is not mentioned in the advertisement which is alleged to be defamatory. The plaintiff contends that it is a New York domestic not for profit corporation which is wholly owned subsidiary of Mrs. Gandhi’s party, the Indian National Congress Party.
Rule 4:26-1 requires every action instituted in New Jersey to be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. Generally speaking the litigant must have a sufficient stake in the matter with a substantial case. See In Re: New Jersey Board of Public Utilities 200 New Jersey Super 544, (App Div 1985).
An examination of the contents of the alleged libelous statement fails to disclose any reference to the plaintiff. The advertisement attacks Ms. Gandhi personally. There were references to her political party, but that political party is not the plaintiff. It is clear to the Court that the plaintiff has no real interest in the outcome of the case since it is not the one who is being libeled. It is impossible for the Court to determine how references to Ms. Gandhi relate to the plaintiff.
So since the Court has determined that the plaintiff is not the real party of interest, no further analysis is necessary and the complaint will be dismissed…
Miller: Your honor, I assume that’s without prejudice so that Sonia Gandhi may be brought in as…
The Court: Of course.
Miller: …a party.
Haefner: Your honor, I would think that that dismissal would be with prejudice because now there is no pending plaintiff. Ms. Gandhi is still within the statute of limitations.
The Court: They can bring another action with somebody else. Can’t they bring another action with somebody else. Can’t they bring another — they can bring another action if they have the right party.
Haefner: That’s my point, she is still within the statute of limitations. If Ms. Gandhi wants to come to New Jersey to…
The Court: Then she’ll have to.
Haefner: … she can do that, but there’s no reason to keep this case open.
The Court: No, this case isn’t open. Okay, thank you.