mann v. national review - motion to dismiss

7/27/2019 Mann v. National Review - Motion to Dismiss

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mann-v-national-review-motion-to-dismiss 1/6

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIACIVIL DIVISION

__________________________________________ MICHAEL E. MANN, PH.D., ) Case No. 2012 CA 8263

Pennsylvania State University )

Department of Meteorology ) Judge Natalia M. Combs GreeneUniversity Park, PA 16802, ))

Plaintiff, ) Next Scheduled Event:v. ) Status Hearing, Oct. 11,

) 2013, 9:30 a.m. NATIONAL REVIEW, INC. )

215 Lexington Avenue ) New York, NY 10016, )

)COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, )

)- and - )

)RAND SIMBERG, )

)- and - )

)MARK STEYN )

c/o National Review, Inc., )215 Lexington Avenue )

New York, NY 10016, ))

Defendants. ))

DEFENDANT MARK STEYN’S AND NATIONAL REVIEW’S SPECIAL MOTION TO

DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO D.C. ANTI-SLAPP

ACT (D.C. CODE § 16-5501 et seq.) AND RULE 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

Pursuant to the District of Columbia Anti-SLAPP Act of 2010, D.C. Code § 16-5501, et

seq. (the “Act”), and Superior Court Rule 12(b)(6), and for the reasons already stated in support

of Defendants’ prior Motions to Dismiss, Defendants National Review, Inc. and Mark Steyn

hereby move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with prejudice.

Because Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint merely adds an additional Count VII, alleging

that Defendants’ Jerry Sandusky-related commentary was defamatory, there is no reason to



- 2 -

repeat briefing on Counts I through VI of the Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, and Defendants

Mark Steyn and National Review, Inc. merely renew the arguments already stated on those

claims and incorporate here their prior Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of

their Special Motion to Dismiss and Rule 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss as support for the current

motion. See Memorandum In Support of Special Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to D.C. Anti-

SLAPP Act and Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to D.C. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(B)(6) of Defendants

National Review, Inc. and Mark Steyn (filed Dec. 14, 2012) (the “Memorandum”).

With respect to the new Count VII added by the Amended Complaint, Defendants have

also already addressed the claim – alleged in Plaintiff’s Original Complaint as well – that the

Jerry Sandusky-related “metaphor” defamed Plaintiff Michael Mann. See Memorandum at 27-

28. Nonetheless, in light of Plaintiff’s clarification that he seeks relief for that Count, they

address Count VII in the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities.

Rule 12-I(a) Certification

The undersigned counsel certifies that he consulted with Plaintiff’s counsel on July 11,

2013, and Plaintiff does not consent to the relief sought in this Motion.

Request for Fees and Costs

The Act provides that “[t]he court may award a moving party who prevails, in whole or

in part . . . the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.” D.C. Code § 16-

5504(a). In the event they prevail “in whole or in part,” Defendants respectfully request that the

Court permit them to submit an application for attorneys’ fees and costs with respect to the fees

incurred in filing both this motion and all previous proceedings in this case. Id.



- 3 -

Request for Hearing

D.C. Code § 16-5502(d) requires an “expedited hearing” on a special motion to dismiss

filed pursuant to the Act. Defendants respectfully request such a hearing.

Under D.C. Code § 16-5502(c)(1), discovery on the claims stated in the Amended

Complaint “shall be stayed” until this Motion has been decided.

Dated: July 24, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Shannen W. CoffinShannen W. Coffin (D.C. Bar No. 449197)

Chris Moeser ( Pro Hac Vice)1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20036-1795Telephone: (202) 429-6255

Facsimile: (202) 429-3902Email: [email protected]

Counsel for Defendants National Review, Inc.

and Mark Steyn

mailto:[email protected]





- 4 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 24th

day of July, 2013, I caused a copy of the foregoing

Special Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Pursuant to D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act

and 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim to be

served by CaseFileXpress upon the following:

John B. WilliamsBernard S. Grimm

Catherine Rosato ReillyCOZEN O’CONNOR

1627 I Street, N.W. Suite 1100Washington, DC 20006

Peter J. Fontaine

COZEN O’CONNOR 1900 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Counsel for Plaintiff

David B. Rivkin, Jr.Bruce D. Brown

Mark I. BailenAndrew M. Grossman

BAKER HOSTETLER LLPWashington Square, Suite 1100

1050 Connecticut Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20036

Counsel for Competitive Enterprise Instituteand Rand Simberg

/s/ Shannen W. Coffin

Shannen W. Coffin



- 5 -

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIACIVIL DIVISION

__________________________________________ MICHAEL E. MANN, PH.D., ) Case No. 2012 CA 8263

Pennsylvania State University )

Department of Meteorology ) Judge Natalia M. Combs GreeneUniversity Park, PA 16802, ))

Plaintiff, ) Next Scheduled Event:v. ) Status Hearing, Oct. 11, 2013,

) 9:30 a.m. NATIONAL REVIEW, INC. )

215 Lexington Avenue ) New York, NY 10016, )

)COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, )

)- and - )

)RAND SIMBERG, )

)- and - )

)MARK STEYN )

c/o National Review, Inc., )215 Lexington Avenue )

New York, NY 10016, ))

Defendants. ))

PROPOSED ORDER

Upon consideration of the Special Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint and Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for

Failure to State a Claim filed by Defendants National Review, Inc. and Mark Steyn, and

good cause appearing therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is granted, and the Amended

Complaint in this matter is dismissed with prejudice.



- 6 -

DATED this ___ day of ______________, 2013.

Natalia M. Combs GreenJUDGE

(Signed in Chambers)

COPIES TO:

Shannen W. CoffinChris Moeser

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20036-1795

[email protected]@steptoe.comCounsel for Defendants National Review, Inc. and Mark Steyn

John B. Williams

Bernard S. GrimmCatherine Rosato Reilly

COZEN O’CONNOR 1627 I Street, N.W. Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20006

Peter J. FontaineCOZEN O’CONNOR

1900 Market StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19103

Counsel for Plaintiff

Bruce D. BrownMark I. Bailen

Andrew M. GrossmanDavid B. Rivkin

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

Washington Square, Suite 11001050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.Washington DC 20036-5304

Counsel for Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg

mann v. national review - motion to dismiss

Documents