In a significant ruling, a federal judge in Nevada has dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by FBI Director Kash Patel against a California blogger due to a lack of personal jurisdiction. The case involved claims of defamation, injurious falsehood, and business disparagement over statements made online by blogger Jim Stewartson. These statements included severe allegations such as calling Patel a “Kremlin asset” and accusing him of involvement in the January 6 Capitol attack.
Chief U.S. District Judge Andrew P. Gordon granted Stewartson’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), stressing that the court lacked jurisdiction as Stewartson did not have sufficient contacts with Nevada. Despite the online nature of the posts, the judge noted that Stewartson’s comments were not specifically targeted at a Nevada audience, but at a broader American political sphere. This decision was guided by the “effects test” from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Calder v. Jones.
The legal proceedings also saw the vacating of a $250,000 default judgment previously entered in Patel’s favor. Judge Gordon ruled this judgment void under Rule 60(b)(4), highlighting that Stewartson had not been properly served initially and emphasizing First Amendment protections. Despite dismissing the case, the judge critiqued Stewartson’s apparent awareness of the lawsuit and his potential evasion of service, indicating that his behavior might have otherwise warranted sanctions, such as covering Patel’s legal fees.
This lawsuit is set against a backdrop of Patel’s ongoing legal battles, with him having filed several defamation suits in recent years. He is simultaneously pursuing a $250 million lawsuit against The Atlantic over an article that reported on his alleged drinking habits. The New York Times noted these multiple legal skirmishes as part of a broader campaign by Patel to address perceived defamation through the courts.
As legal commentators observe this case, it underscores the complexities of jurisdiction in online defamation and the ongoing tension between defamation claims and First Amendment rights. For more details on this legal development, you can read the report from JURIST here.