Se Habla Español
Chúng Tôi Nói Tiếng Việt

Lokhova v. Halper

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Dockets: 20-1368, 20-1437

Opinion Date: April 15, 2021

Judge: Stephanie Dawn Thacker

Areas of Law: Communications Law, Personal Injury

Appellant filed suit against Appellee Harper and various news organizations, alleging defamation, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference with contract. Appellant, a Russian-born academic, alleges that appellees defamed her by falsely stating that she was a Russian spy involved in the alleged collusion between Russia and the campaign of former President Donald Trump. On appeal, the appellant challenges the district court’s dismissal of her tort claims, and Appellee Halper challenges the denial of his motion for sanctions. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the majority of appellant’s defamation claims as time-barred, dismissal of the remaining defamation claims as a matter of law, and dismissal of the vicarious liability claim against NBCUniversal. In regard to statements published prior to May 23, 2018, the court rejected the appellant’s argument that each time an allegedly defamatory publication was hyperlinked or tweeted, the statute of limitations began anew. The court concluded that the public policy supporting the single publication rule and the traditional principles of republication dictate that a mere hyperlink, without more, cannot constitute republication. The court rejected the appellant’s contention that third-party tweets constitute republication pursuant to Weaver v. Beneficial Finance Co., 98 S.E.2d 687 (Va. 1957), a Virginia Supreme Court decision from 1957. In regard to statements published after May 23, 2018, the court concluded that although these statements are not time-barred, neither can they survive a motion to dismiss. In this case, the Washington Post Article did not defame the appellant, and NBCUniversal is not liable for the tweets authored by Malcolm Nance through a respondeat superior theory of liability. Because the appellant’s defamation claims fail, so too does her civil conspiracy claim. The court also concluded that the appellant’s claim of tortious interference with the contract failed where the allegations of Appellee Halper’s knowledge of the appellant’s business expectancies are wholly conclusory. Finally, the court concluded that the district court acted within its discretion by electing not to award sanctions to the appellant’s counsel at this point and in denying the motion to sanction without prejudice.

This case law update is brought to you by Freeway Law, personal injury and auto car accident lawyers. The following is not one of our cases, but it is of some significance, and we thought we should share it with our readers for informational purposes. The information above is for informational purposes only and not to be construed as legal advice.

What do you think?


We get paid when you do.

    Orange County Office:
    2090 N Tustin Ave Suite 250, Santa Ana, CA 92705

    (844) 44-FREEWAY | (844) 443-7339