141732

Ricciv.TeamstersUnionLocal456

UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS
FORTHESECONDCIRCUIT
AugustTerm,2014
(Submitted:March11,2015Decided:March18,2015)
DocketNo.141732
x
PeterRicci,BarbaraRicci,
PlaintiffsAppellants,
v.
TeamstersUnionLocal456,
GoDaddy.com,LLC,
DefendantsAppellees.*
x
Before:

JACOBSandLOHIER,CircuitJudges,andSWAIN,
DistrictJudge.**

* TheClerkofCourtisrespectfullydirectedtoamendtheofficialcaptionin
thiscasetoconformwiththecaptionabove.
** TheHonorableLauraTaylorSwain,oftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfor
theSouthernDistrictofNewYork,sittingbydesignation.

AppealfromajudgmentoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforthe
SouthernDistrictofNewYork(Romn,J.)dismissingdefamationclaimsagainst
GoDaddy.com,LLC,andfederallaborlawclaimsagainsttheTeamstersUnion
Local456.Weaffirm,holdingthattheCommunicationsDecencyActof1996
shieldsGoDaddyfromdefamationliability,andthatallclaimsagainstthe
TeamstersUnionarebarredbythestatuteoflimitations.
PeterRicciandBarbaraRicci,prose,
Yonkers,NewYork.
ChristopherA.Smith,Trivella&Forte,
LLP,WhitePlains,NewYork,for
DefendantAppelleeTeamstersUnionLocal
456.
AaronM.McKownandPaulaL.Zecchini,
RingBenderLLLP,Irvine,California,for
DefendantAppelleeGoDaddy.com,LLC.
PERCURIAM:
PlaintiffsPeterandBarbaraRicci(theRiccis)bringthisactionprose
againstGoDaddy.com,LLC(GoDaddy)andtheTeamstersUnionLocal456
(theUnionortheTeamsters),allegingthatfalsestatementsabouttheRiccis
inaUnionnewsletterwererepublishedonawebsitehostedonGoDaddys
servers.Asrelevanthere,plaintiffssueGoDaddyfordefamation;theysuethe
2

Teamstersforretaliationinviolationofsections7and8oftheNationalLabor
RelationsAct(NLRA),29U.S.C.157,158(b)(1)(A),andforbreachofthe
NLRAsimplieddutyoffairrepresentation.Thedefamationclaimsfailbecause
GoDaddyenjoysimmunityfromthissuitundertheCommunicationsDecency
Actof1996,47U.S.C.230.ThelaborclaimsarebarredbytheNLRAssix
monthstatuteoflimitations,29U.S.C.160(b).Weaffirm.

I
Thefollowingfactsaredrawnfromplaintiffscomplaint,andareassumed
tobetrueforpurposesofourdenovoreviewofthedistrictcourtsgrantof
defendantsmotionstodismissunderFederalRuleofCivilProcedure12(b)(6).
Phillipsv.CityofNewYork,775F.3d538,542(2dCir.2015).
PeterRicci,aTeamstersmembersince1983,refusedtoendorseUnion
PresidentEddieDoyleatameetinginSeptember2002.Forthenexttenyears,
RicciwasblackballedandsufferedretaliationbytheUnionleadership.Hewas
firedfromjobsheshouldhavekept;hewasnotplacedincertainjobsheshould
havegotten;andhewasgenerallydisfavored,evenascomparedwithmembers
withlessseniority.
3

InAugustandSeptember2012,membersoftheUniondistributed
newsletterscontainingdefamatorystatementsabouttheRiccis(andtheir
daughter).Thosenewsletterswerealsopublishedonawebsitecalled
thewestchesternewsletter.com(nowdefunct),whichwashostedonGoDaddys
webservers.Soonafter,onDecember6,2012,PeterRiccilefttheUnion.
TheRiccisdonotallegethatGoDaddyhadanyroleincreatingthe
allegedlydefamatorynewsletters.Tothecontrary,theircomplaintrepeatedly
allegesthatthenewslettersweredraftedanddistributedbyothers.SeeCompl.
9(allegingthatTeamstersUnionLocal456isthecreatorofthe
newsletters);seealsoid.10(allegingthatGoDaddy(eventually)decidedto
revealthe...identityofthepublisherandcreatorsofthenewsletters).Asto
GoDaddy,theonlyallegationsinthecomplaintare:(1)GoDaddyhosteda
websitethatpublishedtheallegedlydefamatorynewsletters,seeid.910;
(2)GoDaddyrefusedtoremovethenewsletterfromitsservers,id.9;and
(3)GoDaddycompletelyrefusedtoinvestigateBarbaraRicciscomplaints,id.
Noneofthoseallegationsaredisputedbytheparties.
OnJuly8,2013,theRiccisfiledthislawsuitintheSupremeCourtofthe
StateofNewYork.TheTeamsters,withGoDaddysconsent,removedthecaseto
4

theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofNewYork.Eachthen
movedtodismissforfailuretostateaclaimunderFederalRuleofCivil
Procedure12(b)(6).Thedistrictcourt(Romn,J.)grantedbothmotions;
dismissedallclaimsagainstGoDaddy,andallfederalclaimsagainstthe
TeamstersUnion;anddeclinedtoexercisesupplementaljurisdictionoverany
remainingstatelawclaims.

II
Acceptingastruealloftheallegationsinthecomplaint,GoDaddyis
immunefromtheRiccisdefamationclaimsunderaprovisionofthe
CommunicationsDecencyActof1996:[n]oprovideroruserofaninteractive
computerserviceshallbetreatedasthepublisherorspeakerofanyinformation
providedbyanotherinformationcontentprovider.47U.S.C.230(c)(1).
Preemptionisexpress:Nocauseofactionmaybebroughtandnoliabilitymay
beimposedunderanyStateorlocallawthatisinconsistentwiththissection.
Id.230(e)(3).
TheRiccisseektoholdGoDaddyliableasapublisherorspeakerof
allegedlydefamatorystatementsauthoredbysomeoneelsethatis,another
5

informationcontentprovider.Id.230(c)(1).1SoifGoDaddyisbeingsuedin
itscapacityasaproviderofaninteractivecomputerservice,id.,itisimmune
fromdefamationliabilityundertheCommunicationsDecencyAct.
Thestatutedefinesinteractivecomputerserviceexpansively,toinclude
anyinformationservice,system,oraccesssoftwareproviderthatprovidesor
enablescomputeraccessbymultipleuserstoacomputerserver.Id.230(f)(2).
Thiswordinghasbeenconstruedbroadlytoeffectuatethestatutesspeech
protectivepurpose:
Congressrecognizedthethreatthattortbasedlawsuitsposeto
freedomofspeechinthenewandburgeoningInternetmedium....
Section230wasenacted,inpart,tomaintaintherobustnatureof
Internetcommunicationand,accordingly,tokeepgovernment
interferenceinthemediumtoaminimum....Noneofthismeans,of
course,thattheoriginalculpablepartywhopostsdefamatory
messageswouldescapeaccountability....Congressmadeapolicy
choice,however,nottodeterharmfulonlinespeechthroughthe
separaterouteofimposingtortliabilityoncompaniesthatserveas
intermediariesforotherpartiespotentiallyinjuriousmessages.
Zeranv.Am.Online,Inc.,129F.3d327,33031(4thCir.1997).Inshort,aplaintiff
defamedontheinternetcansuetheoriginalspeaker,buttypicallycannotsue
1 Theterminformationcontentprovidermeansanypersonorentitythat
isresponsible,inwholeorinpart,forthecreationordevelopmentofinformation
providedthroughtheInternetoranyotherinteractivecomputerservice.47
U.S.C.230(f)(3).
6

themessenger.Chi.LawyersComm.forCivilRightsUnderLaw,Inc.v.
Craigslist,Inc.,519F.3d666,672(7thCir.2008).
WehaveneverconstruedtheimmunityprovisionsoftheCommunications
DecencyAct,butothercourtshaveappliedthestatutetoagrowinglistof
internetbasedserviceproviders.See,e.g.,Klaymanv.Zuckerberg,753F.3d1354
(D.C.Cir.2014);Doev.MySpace,Inc.,528F.3d413(5thCir.2008);Craigslist,519
F.3dat672.ThatincludesGoDaddy.SeeKruskav.PervertedJusticeFound.Inc.,
No.CV080054PHXSMM,2008WL2705377,at*3(D.Ariz.July9,2008)
(GoDaddy,asawebhost,qualifiesasaninteractivecomputerserviceprovider
undertheCDA.).
Wejointhisconsensus.TheRiccisallegeonlythatGoDaddyrefusedto
removefromitswebserversanallegedlydefamatorynewsletterthatwas
authoredbyanother.TheseallegationsdonotwithstandtheCommunications
DecencyAct,whichshieldsGoDaddyfrompublisherliability(withrespectto
webcontentprovidedbyothers)initscapacityasaproviderofaninteractive
computerservice.
Although[p]reemptionundertheCommunicationsDecencyActisan
affirmativedefense,...itcanstillsupportamotiontodismissifthestatutes
7

barriertosuitisevidentfromthefaceofthecomplaint.Klayman,753F.3dat
1357;seealsoMcKennav.Wright,386F.3d432,436(2dCir.2004).Here,the
defectisevident.Sodismissalwasappropriate.

III
AstothelaborlawclaimsagainsttheTeamstersUnion:weagreewiththe
districtcourtthattheyareallbarredbythesixmonthstatuteoflimitationsinthe
NLRA.See29U.S.C.160(b);seealsoDelCostellov.IntlBhd.ofTeamsters,462
U.S.151,155(1983).Thelasteventreferencedinthecomplainttookplaceon
December6,2012,whenPeterRiccilefttheTeamstersUnion.Evenassumingthe
statutedidnotbegintorununtilthen,thecomplaint,whichwasfiledonJuly8,
2013,wasaboutamonthlate.2

2 Forthefirsttimeonappeal,theTeamstersarguethatexclusivejurisdiction
overthelaborlawclaimslieswiththeNationalLaborRelationsBoard.SeeSan
DiegoBldg.TradesCouncil,MillmensUnion,Local2020v.Garmon,359U.S.
236,246(1959).TheTeamstersarewrong:theRiccisbringaclaimunderthe
implieddutyoffairrepresentation,andalloftheirotherclaimsagainsttheUnion
arecollateraltothatfairrepresentationclaim;sothefederalcourtshave
subjectmatterjurisdiction.See,e.g.,Marquezv.ScreenActorsGuild,525U.S.33,
50(1998).
8

CONCLUSION
Fortheforegoingreasons,andfindingnomeritinplaintiffsother
arguments,weherebyAFFIRMthejudgmentofthedistrictcourt.