AMES v. AMERICAN RADIO RELAY LEAGUE INCORPORATED et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE C. DARNELL JONES, II ON 12/21/16. 12/22/16 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSEPH A. AMES,
Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN RADIO RELAY LEAGUE
INCORPORATED, et al.,
Defendants.

Jones, II

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 16-03660

J.

December 21, 2016
MEMORANDUM

This case involves a state-law defamation claim brought by Joseph Ames, a
citizen of Pennsylvania, against American Radio Relay League Incorporated (ARRL), a
Connecticut corporation, and Tom Gallagher, Rick Roderick, and Dr. James Boehner (each an
out-of-state officer or director of ARRL, and together with ARRL, the “Defendants”). 1 Compl.
¶¶ 1, 8-11, ECF No. 1.
Pending before this Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 10. This Court grants the
Motion because the plaintiff’s pleadings, including documents referenced therein and submitted
by the parties, show on their face that the allegedly defamatory statements are true and, thus,
cannot form the basis of a defamation claim as a matter of law.
1

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Ames’ Complaint on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. The parties are completely diverse, Compl. ¶¶ 8–9, and Ames is seeking damages in excess of $75,000, see
id. at 13. Defendants do not dispute jurisdiction.

1

STANDARD OF REVIEW
In deciding a 12(b)(6) motion, courts must “accept all factual allegations as true,
construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under
any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.” Phillips v. Cnty.
of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). This standard, which applies to all civil cases, “asks for more
than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “[A]ll
civil complaints must now set out sufficient factual matter to show that the claim is facially
plausible.” Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210 (internal quotation marks omitted). “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)).
“As a general rule, the court may only consider the pleading which is attacked by
an FRCP 12(b)(6) motion in determining its sufficiency.” Pryor v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic
Ass’n, 288 F.3d 548, 560 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting 62 FED. PROC., LAWYERS’ EDITION § 62:508).
“However, the court may consider documents which are attached to or submitted with the
complaint, as well as . . . documents whose contents are alleged in the complaint and whose
authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading[.]” Id.
(emphasis in original). “Documents that the defendant attaches to the motion to dismiss are
considered part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff’s complaint and are
central to the claim[.]” Id. (emphasis in original).

2

BACKGROUND
Defendant ARRL is the national association for Amateur Radio in the United
States. Compl. ¶ 1, n.1. It is a non-profit organization that organizes and trains volunteer
amateur radio operators to provide public service and emergency communication. See About
ARRL, http://www.arrl.org/about-arrl (cited in the Complaint at ¶ 1, n.1); see also Defs.’ Br. 2,
ECF No. 10-2. ARRL is governed by a 15-member board of directors, each elected regionally
by division. See ARRL Organization Structure, http://www.arrl.org/organization-structure; see
also Defs.’ Br. 2. Each division is further divided into sections, each of which periodically elects
a section manager. Section managers are responsible for administering ARRL’s volunteer field
organization programs. See The ARRL Field Organization Structure, http://www.arrl.org/fieldorganization; see also Defs.’ Br. 2-3.
The National Traffic System (“NTS”) is one of ARRL’s public-service field
organization programs. Compl. ¶ 1, n.1. The NTS is divided into three areas: Eastern, Central
and Pacific. Id. Plaintiff Ames does not explicitly allege his relationship to AARL, but the
Complaint presumes he is a volunteer member who served as Eastern Pennsylvania section
manager and NTS Eastern Area chair. Id. ¶ 1.
During his tenure as section manager and area chair, Ames engaged in direct
communications with representatives of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Id. ¶¶ 19-20, 23-25, 31-35, and Exs. A, F, G, and H. On or around June 20, 2016, ARRL sent
Ames a letter informing him that he was being removed from his leadership roles for
communicating directly with FEMA and making commitments on behalf of NTS and ARRL
without authorization and in violation of ARRL’s policies. Compl. ¶ 15 and Ex. K. On June 22,

3

ARRL published an article on its website announcing Ames’ termination and the reasons
therefor (the “Article”). Compl. ¶ 15, Ex. B. The Article states, in relevant part:
Ames unilaterally and repeatedly communicated with officials of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on behalf of NTS,
making commitments on behalf of ARRL without authority and in
violation of the rules and regulations of the Field Organization. Those
actions were contrary to the terms of the Memorandum of
Understanding between FEMA and ARRL, which states clearly that
ARRL Headquarters staff will be the single point of contact between
FEMA and ARRL. . . .
In August 2015, then-ARRL CEO David Sumner . . . wrote to Ames
and instructed him that, unless otherwise authorized by ARRL, any
communication with FEMA with respect to NTS is to be conducted
through ARRL authorized representatives. ARRL learned that Ames
repeatedly acted contrary to Sumner’s directive, which led to the
decision to cancel Ames’s Field Organization appointment and to
declare the office of the Section Manager for Eastern Pennsylvania
vacant.
Id. ¶ 16, Ex. B (emphasis in original).

The content of the Article was later reported on the ARRL audio news broadcast,
and was distributed via e-mail to global subscribers of “The ARRL Letter,” as well as through
the ARRL Special Bulletin ARLX007 and ARRL social media outlets. Id. ¶ 17. Third party
media outlets, such as Amateur Radio Newsline, also reported the Article’s news on numerous
radio stations. Id. The plaintiff alleges that, as result of these publications, “many” of ARRL’s
165,000 members worldwide and other third parties saw and/or heard about the Article. Id. ¶ 42.
Ames filed the present Complaint on July 5, 2016, alleging that the Article
defamed him, harmed his reputation and caused him emotional anguish. Id. ¶¶ 42-52.
Specifically, he claims that the following statements are false and defamatory: (1) Ames
unilaterally communicated with FEMA officials on behalf of NTS; (2) Ames repeatedly acted
contrary to a letter ARRL’s chief executive officer sent Ames in August 2015, which stated that
any communications from NTS to FEMA were to be conducted only through an authorized
4

ARRL representative; and (3) Ames made commitments on behalf of ARRL without authority
and in violation of ARRL’s rules and regulations and the terms of the Memorandum of
Understanding between FEMA and ARRL. Compl. ¶¶ 18, 22–23, 30–31, 44–46. The
Complaint references several exhibits attached thereto, including copies of the publications that
gave rise to this dispute and various e-mails and letters that purport to establish the falsity of the
defamatory statements. Compl., Exs. A-K.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim. Attached
to Defendants’ Motion is a document referenced in, but not filed with, the Complaint. See Defs.’
Br., Ex. A. The Court may consider all the documents submitted by the parties and referenced in
the plaintiff’s pleadings in deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. 2 See Pryor, 288 F.3d at 560.
DISCUSSION
This Court grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss because the plaintiff’s pleadings
show on their face that the contested statements are true and, therefore, cannot form the basis of
a defamation claim under Pennsylvania law. 3
To state a prima facie case for defamation, the plaintiff must show: (1) the
defamatory character of the communication; (2) its publication by the defendant; (3) its

2

The plaintiff argues that Defendants cannot “draw from facts outside the Complaint.” Pl’s Br. 10, ECF No. 12. He
also suggests—without citing any authority—that this Court is not permitted to reference the exhibits attached to his
Complaint for purposes of deciding the Motion to Dismiss. Id. at 3, 11–13. The plaintiff is wrong to the extent
Defendants and this Court rely on undisputed documents referenced in his Complaint. See Pryor, 288 F.3d at 560.
Moreover, the plaintiff contradicts himself by arguing that the contents of “the exhibits attached to the Complaint”
show that the statements in the Article are false. Pl’s Br. 4.

3

The present case does not appear to implicate any conflict of laws as none of the parties’ challenge the
applicability of Pennsylvania law. See Steaks Unlimited, Inc. v. Deaner, 623 F.2d 264, 269–70 (3d Cir. 1980)
(courts can apply the law of a particular state if the litigants agree to have that state’s law govern their dispute’s
substantive issues, and that state has an interest in the outcome of their case). But even if such a conflict existed,
Pennsylvania has the greatest interest in this case because the plaintiff is domiciled here. See Wilson v. Slatalla, 970
F. Supp. 405, 414 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (“the state of plaintiff’s domicile generally has the greatest concern in vindicating
plaintiff’s good name and providing compensation for harm caused by the defamatory publication,” quoting
Fitzpatrick v. Milky Way Prods., Inc., 537 F. Supp. 165, 171 (E.D. Pa. 1982) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The viability of Ames’ defamation claim is, therefore, governed by Pennsylvania law.

5

application to the plaintiff; (4) the understanding by the recipient of its defamatory meaning; (5)
the understanding by the recipient of it as intended to be applied to the plaintiff; (6) special harm
resulting to the plaintiff from its publication; and (7) abuse of a conditionally privileged
occasion. 42 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 8343(a).
“Truth is an affirmative defense [to defamation claims brought] under
Pennsylvania law.” Tucker v. Fischbein, 237 F.3d 275, 287 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing 42 Pa. Stat.
and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 8343(b)(1)); see also Bobb v. Kraybill, 511 A.2d 1379, 1380 (Pa. Super.
Ct. 1986) (“Truth is an absolute defense to defamation in Pennsylvania”). Accordingly, to be
actionable, the alleged defamatory statements must be false. Joseph v. Scranton Times L.P., 959
A.2d 322, 334 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008)); see also Kurowski v. Burroughs, 994 A.2d 611, 619 (2010)
(“it is a constitutional requirement that a plaintiff alleging defamation bear the burden of
demonstrating that the statements are false,” citing to Phila. Newspapers v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767,
776 (1986)); Tucker, 237 F.3d at 288 (Alito, J.) (a defendant accused of making defamatory
comments “cannot be held liable unless the [plaintiff] can prove that the comments were false”).
Courts do not ordinarily consider affirmative defenses on a motion to dismiss
unless “they appear on the face of the complaint.” Morrison v. Chatham Univ., No. CV 16-476,
2016 WL 4701460, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2016) (citing to Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 461
(3d Cir. 2013), which held that 12(b)(6) dismissal on the basis of an affirmative defense is
appropriate where the defense appears on the face of the complaint). Hence, a defendant can
defeat a defamation claim with a 12(b)(6) motion if the plaintiff’s pleadings demonstrate on their
face that the defamatory communications are true. Whiting v. Safe Auto Insurance Co., No. 156791, 2016 WL 3940827, at *4 (E.D. Pa. July 20, 2016) (dismissing a defamation claim pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) because the factual allegations in the complaint, taken as true, “in no way

6

undermine[d] the truth of” the defendant’s statement); Morrison, 2016 WL 4701460, at *4
(dismissing defamation claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) “because the face of Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint makes clear the truth of the defamatory statements.”).
Here, the plaintiff’s own pleadings, including documents referenced in the
Complaint and submitted by the parties, demonstrate that all three contested statements are true.
First, Ames communicated with FEMA representatives on behalf of NTS and did so unilaterally,
i.e., without ARRL’s agreement. On May 28, 2015, Ames received an e-mail from Christopher
Turner, deputy director of FEMA’s Disaster Emergency Communications Division. Compl. ¶
24, Ex. H 2. Within hours, Ames responded directly to Turner’s inquiries and did so in his
capacity as section manager and NTS Eastern Area chair as indicated by his e-mail’s signature
block. See Compl. ¶ 25, Ex. H 1-2. Then, on July 10, 2015, Ames signed a letter addressed to
Eric Edwards, another FEMA representative. Compl., Ex. A. That letter was drafted on NTS
letterhead and was apparently co-signed by James Wades, an NTS director. Id. There is no
allegation that Ames or Wades was authorized to communicate with FEMA on NTS’ behalf.
On the contrary, in August 2015, ARRL’s then-chief executive officer David
Sumner sent Ames a letter notifying him that his communications with FEMA, including the
July 10 letter signed by Ames and Wades, were unauthorized and violated ARRL policy. Defs.’
Br., Ex. A 1-2; see also Compl. ¶ 32. Sumner’s letter specifically references “Bylaw 31,” which
purportedly reads in relevant part:
The President . . . shall, subject to instructions from the Board of
Directors, and with the assistance of the Chief Executive Officer,
represent the League in its relationships with the public and the
various governments, governmental agencies and officials with
which the League may be concerned, and shall be the official
spokesman of the Board of Directors in regard to all matters of
League policy.

7

Defs.’ Br., Ex. A. The letter also alludes to “Board policy,” which supposedly includes the
following guidance:
The Chief Executive Officer is responsible to the President for
contacts made by staff, including the Regulatory Information
Manager and the Chief Technology Officer, in the performance of
their duties. From time to time, assignments involving Federal
government contact may be made by the Board to individuals or to
ad hoc Committees, task groups or task forces; in such cases, the
extent of contact authorized will be determined by the terms of
reference.
Id. Sumner proceeded to explain that Michael Corey was the only ARRL representative
authorized to communicate with FEMA under a Memorandum of Agreement between the two
entities, and that moving forward “any communication with FEMA pertaining to the [NTS] and
any other ARRL program [was] to be conducted only through Mr. Corey” unless otherwise
authorized by ARRL’s then-President Kay Craigie. Defs’ Br., Ex. A 2. Ames does not question
the authenticity of this letter or the veracity of its content.
Second, Ames admittedly continued to communicate with FEMA even after
receiving Sumner’s letter. Compl. ¶¶ 19-20, 32. For instance, on October 10, 2015, Ames
notified Sumner and Corey that he had received a call from Turner regarding Hurricane Joachim
and, “given the sense of urgency in his voice,” Ames confirmed to Turner that NTS was willing
to help. Compl. ¶ 19, Ex. F. On or around February 12, 2016, Ames once again wrote an e-mail
to Turner “[o]n behalf of the NTS and ARRL[.]” Compl. ¶ 20, Ex. G. In that e-mail, Ames
noted that Corey was the “organizational point of contact for FEMA,” but stated that he would
be “happy to continue as your NTS liaison if you so desire.” Id. Ames does not allege Craigie
authorized those communications. Thus, it is true that Ames unilaterally communicated with
FEMA on behalf of NTS before and after Sumner’s August 2015 letter.

8

Third, Ames made unauthorized commitments on behalf of ARRL in violation of
the organization’s rules and regulations and the terms of its Memorandum of Understanding with
FEMA. In the July 10, 2015 letter to Edwards, Ames and Wades stated that NTS “desire[d] to
build on the foundation established by the memorandum of agreement[.]” Compl., Ex. A. That
letter also stated that “NTS will work with FEMA to develop standard guidelines to define the
extent and nature of [NTS’] support to FEMA, as well as state and local emergency management
agencies.” Id. Ames and Wades further committed NTS to arranging a “table top exercise” with
Edwards’ FEMA team and went so far as to “envision a formal memorandum of agreement or
understanding between NTS and FEMA” separate and apart from the existing Memorandum of
Agreement between ARRL and FEMA. Id. Finally, they claimed that the “entire NTS . . .
look[ed] forward to continuing [the] discussion.” Id. Ames made various other commitments in
an e-mail he sent to Turner on February 11, 2016. Compl., Ex. G 2. Ames stated that “NTS
[was] delighted to accept FEMA’s invitation to participate in the upcoming exercise, Cascadia
Rising,” and he specifically committed several NTS representatives to support the FEMA
exercise by outlining their roles. 4 Id. (emphasis in original). In sum, the plaintiff’s own
pleadings demonstrate that all three contested statements are true.
The plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary do not pass muster. Ames does not
dispute that his communications with FEMA actually happened as described. Instead, he argues
that the Article “as a whole is false and defamatory because ARRL knew of and approved [his]
conduct.” Pl.’s Br. 15, ECF No. 12. He notes that he “looped in ARRL leadership and peers . . .
throughout [his] ongoing dialogue with FEMA,” and that Sumner and Corey each thanked him
for keeping them informed of those conversations without expressing any disapproval. Id. at 6,
4

Ames explained to Turner that “Rob Griffin, chairman of the NTS Pacific area staff and fellow ARRL section
manager, will supervise NTS participation in Washington and Oregon[, and] Jim Wades will be our team leader for
on-site planning, preparation, and operations.” Compl., Ex. G 2 (emphasis in original).

9

8-9. For Ames, the fact that ARRL’s leadership did not object at every turn means it tacitly
endorsed his conduct. Id. at 14; see also Compl. ¶ 35-36 (“whatever alleged rules and
regulations there were for communications between ARRL and FEMA . . . they were not
enforced.”); id. ¶ 46 (the Memorandum of Agreement between ARRL and FEMA was also
“waived and/or not enforced”). The plaintiff further alleges that, a few days after Sumner sent
the August 2015 letter, he received an ARRL certificate, signed by Craigie, authorizing him to
“nominate other deserving qualified radio amateurs for membership” in the ARRL A-1 Operator
Club. Pl.’s Br. 8-9. According to Ames, the “certificate suggests that ARRL was satisfied with
[his] work while knowing that [he] had ongoing communications with Chris Turner of FEMA.”
Id. at 9. The plaintiff also seems to imply that his unanimous re-election as section manager on
April 1, 2016, is another indication of his satisfactory performance. Id. at 9. Lastly, the plaintiff
argues he never made any commitments to FEMA representatives, but merely apprised them of
“NTS’s ability to receive and relay messages.” Pl.’s Br. 6-7, 14. 5
The plaintiff cites no case law in support of these arguments, which in any event
are beside the point because none of them are factually supported by the pleadings even when
viewed in the light most favorable to him. Ames’ contention that he was merely “relaying”
information to FEMA about NTS’ abilities is far-fetched. His own exhibits show that he made
explicit commitments in response to FEMA’s requests for assistance with specific initiatives,
such as the Cascadia Rising exercise. Ames’ claim that the Memorandum of Agreement was
“waived and/or not enforced” is contradicted by the fact that Sumner warned Ames that Corey
was the only authorized point of contact between FEMA and ARRL under that agreement.
5

For the sake of completeness, this Court notes that the Complaint also alleges there was an “ongoing rift between
NTS and ARRL’s support for NTS.” Compl. ¶ 38. And that “Ames was considered the spokesman for NTS’s three
Area Chairmen that considered FEMA’s requests.” Id. Those allegations add nothing to plaintiff’s cause of action,
because NTS is alleged to be a program of ARRL not an independent entity. If anything, they reveal the plaintiff’s
inclination to overstep his authority.

10

ARRL’s decision to remove Ames from his leadership positions after he disregarded Sumner’s
directive is further evidence of enforcement. Ames’ argument that ARRL personnel knew of and
approved his conduct is also controverted by the pleadings. Sumner informed the plaintiff that
his communications with FEMA were unauthorized and violated ARRL policy and that Corey
was the only authorized “point of contact” with FEMA. Nothing in the Complaint or
accompanying exhibits indicates that any of Ames’ communications with FEMA were
authorized by policy or approved by the appropriate ARRL representative before or after they
happened. Sumner’s and Corey’s e-mails thanking Ames for informing them of his
communications with FEMA are not properly understood as endorsements of his conduct,
especially since those contacts occurred after Ames had been directed to cease communications
with FEMA representatives unless authorized by Craigie. And the certificate signed by Craigie
does not explicitly or implicitly authorize Ames’ communications with FEMA; it simply
acknowledges his membership in the ARRL A-1 Operator Club and his right to nominate other
radio amateurs for membership. Ames’ re-election is equally irrelevant because it says nothing
about the falsity of the contested statements.
In sum, notwithstanding any allegations to the contrary, the plaintiff’s pleadings
show unambiguously that all three contested statements are true and, therefore, cannot form the
basis of a defamation claim against any of the Defendants as a matter of law. 6

6

This Court does not address Defendants’ other arguments because it is satisfied that the plaintiff cannot show that
the allegedly defamatory statements are false. See Tucker v. Fischbein, No. CIV. A. 97-6150, 1999 WL 124355, at
*6 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 9, 1999) (withholding judgment on defendants’ other arguments because the court was
“convinced” the alleged comments were not capable of defamatory meaning), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 237 F.3d
275, 287-88 (3d Cir. 2001) (noting, without disapproval, the district court’s decision to forego commenting on all of
the defendant’s arguments).

11

CONCLUSION
Because the plaintiff not only failed to adequately allege that the defamatory
statements are false but instead produced and referenced documents that show that they are true,
Defendants’ Motion is granted. The Complaint is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. See
Morrison, 2016 WL 4701460, at *4 (dismissing with prejudice because the plaintiff’s complaint
“makes clear the truth of the defamatory statements”). An appropriate Order follows.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ C. Darnell Jones, II
C. Darnell Jones, II J.

12