Democratic National Committee v. The Russian Federation et al
Filing
224
MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Document filed by WikiLeaks.(Dratel, Joshua)
Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 224 Filed 03/04/19 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------X
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, :
Plaintiff,
18 Civ. 3501 (JGK)
:
- against -
:
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, et al.,
NOTICE OF MOTION IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
WIKILEAKS’S MOTION
TO DISMISS THE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
:
Defendants.
:
--------------------------------------------------------X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Declaration of Joshua L. Dratel, Esq.,
and all prior papers and proceedings herein, the defendant, WIKILEAKS, will move before the
Honorable John G. Koeltl, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, at
the United States Courthouse located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, at a time and date to be set
by the Court, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, for an Order dismissing the Second
Amended Complaint on the following bases:
(a)
imposing liability on WikiLeaks for the conduct alleged against it in the FAC
would violate the First Amendment;
(b)
as a “user or provider of an interactive computer service,” WikiLeaks is immune
from civil liability pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §230;
(c)
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) causes of
action are deficient because they fail to allege sufficiently with respect to
WikiLeaks several elements of a RICO violation, including (1) a RICO enterprise,
and/or WikiLeaks’ operation or management of its affairs; (2) a pattern of
1
Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 224 Filed 03/04/19 Page 2 of 3
racketeering activity, including the requisite predicate acts; (3) cognizable injury
to plaintiff’s business or property; and (4) a RICO conspiracy;
(d)
the cause of action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2511 fails because the statute punishes
only contemporaneous interception of communications, which is not alleged (and
did not occur) here;
(e)
the cause of action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1836 fails because (1) it does not allege
theft of a cognizable trade secret; (2) §1836 does not include conspiratorial or
aiding and abetting liability; and (3) §1836 does not apply extraterritorially to the
conduct alleged against WikiLeaks;
(f)
personal jurisdiction over WikiLeaks is lacking;
(g)
venue is not proper in the Southern District of New York;
(h)
any pendent state law claims should be dismissed pursuant to the abstention
doctrine, and because they fail to state a claim; and
on the grounds set forth in the Memorandum of Law filed December 7. 2018 (ECF Dkt #208) by
WikiLeaks and the Supplemental Memo of Law filed today by WikiLeaks, as well as the
Memorandum(s) of Law filed today and previously on behalf of all defendants, and in any other
defendants’ motions, which Wikileaks joins to the extent they inure to WikiLeaks’s benefit, as
well as for any such other and further relief as to the Court seems just and proper.
Dated:
New York, New York
4 March 2019
/S/ Joshua L. Dratel
Joshua L. Dratel
Joshua L. Dratel, P.C.
29 Broadway, Suite 1412
New York, New York 10006
(212) 732-0707
2
Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 224 Filed 03/04/19 Page 3 of 3
jdratel@joshuadratel.com
Attorneys for Defendant WikiLeaks
To:
CLERK OF THE COURT
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL
ALL DEFENSE COUNSEL
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?