Plaintiff: Spencer Cushing, M.D. (“Dr. Cushing”), by and through counsel, A Saltzman Law, submits this Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count II of Dr. Cushing’s complaint with prejudice, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendant has brought this motion to address the Plaintiff, Spencer Cushing’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in Count II of Dr. Cushing’s complaint, which requests liability against Defendant Linky Mitchell for the republication of her defamatory statement. Dr. Cushing requests the Court deny the Defendant’s motion to dismiss because Defendant Mitchell should have reasonably foreseen that her post would be republished because of…show more content… Dismissal of Count II of the complaint is not permitted because Defendant Mitchell could have reasonably foreseen that her defamatory Facebook post would be republished due to the content of the defamatory statement; therefore, this Court should deny the Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The repetition of a person’s defamatory remark, by another, gives rise to a cause of action for defamation against the original defamer, when the repetition is reasonably foreseeable. Samaan v. Sauer, No. 2:07-CV-00960 JAM GGH, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85268, at *13-14 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2008) In Samaan, the plaintiff, Samaan, filed suit against, Sauer, over alleged racist remarks made by Sauer against Samaan. Samaan informed Sauer’s employer of the suit, alleging that one of his employee’s had made racist comments about Samaan to other employees. Id. of the symposia. at *3. The. As a result, Sauer’s employer discussed the matter with other members of the company’s management, and a formal investigation was conducted. Id. of the symposia. at *3-6. Then the sand is sanded. The investigation found Samaan’s remarks to be false. Id. of the symposia. at *6. Sauer filed a countersuit for defamation due to the false statements made by Samaan. Id. of the…show more content… Connecting with different users is facilitated almost entirely through the sharing of a user’s posts, making it integral to the platform. The similarities between a statement and a post, the news reporters and users that repost, and users that view the repost and a news audience, show how a press conference and Facebook relate. Although, it might seem more reasonably foreseeable that news media outlets will republish a statement than someone’s Facebook friends, given that reposting is a known and integral aspect of the Facebook platform, Defendant Mitchell should have reasonably foreseen that their post would be republished due to the nature of Facebook and the Court should deny the motion to dismiss. CONCLUSION. The Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count II of the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should be denied because a reasonable person would see that Linky Mitchell, should have reasonably foreseen the republishing of her defamatory post because of the content of her post and the nature of Facebook. These significant facts support the idea that the Court should deny a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, Plaintiff Dr. Cushing respectfully requests that the court deny the Defendant’s motion to dismiss due to the presence of a claim in which relief can be
