Jin v. Ministry of State Security

254 F.Supp.2d 61 (2003)

What's Going On?

Defendant's motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' state law defamation claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Who's Who?

Plaintiffs     :

Jin, et al – 51 practitioners of Falun Gong who are Chinese nationals, U.S. residents, and U.S. citizens.

Defendants :

Ministry of State Security of the People's Republic of China – Chinese department of state security;
CTC – a Chinese-American association and California corporation;
China Central Television (CCTV) – national broadcasting entity of the People's Republic of China; et al.

Facts:

Plaintiffs are 51 practitioners of Falun Gong, a self-improvement practice, similar to Tai Chi, that is rooted in ancient Chinese culture. Plaintiffs brought an action in federal court against Defendants, the Ministry of State Security of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and other persons and entities associated with the PRC, alleging federal civil rights and RICO violations, as well as a state law defamation claim. Since Falun Gong's introduction in 1992, the number of practitioners had grown to over 70 million by 1999. Plaintiffs allege that, in 1996, Defendants began a defamation campaign to eradicate Falun Gong, which it perceived as a threat to the PRC. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants used mass media outlets in China and the United States to defame Plaintiffs. In particular, Plaintiffs allege that CTC, a California-based Chinese-American association, disseminated propaganda characterizing Plaintiffs as advocates of suicide, intra-family violence, anti-family values, and cult worship. Defendant CTC argued that Plaintiffs' state law defamation claim would involve diverse applications of state defamation law, and result in difficult choice of law issues, the complexities of which weighed against supplemental jurisdiction. Defendant CTC moved to dismiss the claim pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and under FRCP 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim.

Issue:

Do possible difficulties in resolving issues involving choice of law and the diverse application of law by state courts inherently amount to complex questions of state law that are sufficient to defeat a federal court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim?

Decision:

No. Plaintiffs' civil rights and RICO claims are based on federal statutes and therefore have an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' state law defamation claim has no such basis for independent jurisdiction, but Plaintiffs assert supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The court determines if supplemental jurisdiction exists by applying a two-part test. First, the court must determine that the state law claim shares a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claims. Second, the court must conclude that the interests of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness support the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. In this case, the defamation claim alleges a series of factual occurrences involving Defendants' distribution of communications targeted at the Chinese-American community in order to defame Plaintiffs. These facts also form a key part of an alleged overarching campaign to nullify Plaintiffs' rights and liberties, as alleged by the federal claims. Therefore, the first element of the test is met. Defendant CTC's only challenge to supplemental jurisdiction is that Plaintiffs' defamation claim involves complex questions of state law and choice of law issues that weigh against the exercise of jurisdiction; however, complexity does not necessarily exist in this case because there is no significant uncertainty as to the laws of defamation that are applied in the parties' respective states. The possible difficulty involved in applying state law does not equal complexity. Therefore, the issues involved in the defamation claim do not sufficiently weigh against the interests reflected in the second element of the test. The court may assert supplemental jurisdiction in this case, and Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) motion is dismissed; however, the court must grant Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the defamation claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The statute of limitations for defamation claims is one year from the date of first publication. Plaintiffs brought this action over one year after the propaganda at issue was disseminated. Dismissed.

Basic Rule:

Possible difficulties in resolving issues involving choice of law and the diverse application of law by state courts do not inherently amount to complex questions of state law that are sufficient to defeat a federal court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim.

Terms:

Defamation :

The act of damaging the good name or reputation of another by publishing false statements or making false statements to a third party.

RICO :

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968. Federal law enacted to attack organized crime affecting interstate or foreign commerce.

Supplemental Jurisdiction :

The exercise of authority over a claim arising out of the same nucleus of operative facts as another claim over which the court has original jurisdiction.

Home  |  Briefs  |  Glossary  |  Contact Us