Hikaru Nakamura Files Motion To Dismiss Hans Niemann Lawsuit

Hikaru Nakamura Files Motion To Dismiss Hans Niemann Lawsuit


GM Hikaru Nakamura filed a motion in the Eastern District of Missouri to dismiss GM Hans Niemann‘s lawsuit on December 7. This is the latest development in the defamation lawsuit that has received international attention, filed in late October. Chess.com, GM Magnus Carlsen, and IM Daniel Rensch filed their respective motions to dismiss the previous week.

The 15-page document argues that the court does not have personal jurisdiction over Defendant Nakamura, who resides in Florida and made comments online, in the state of Missouri. It further argues that all of the claims are “wholly defective” and should be dismissed and that Nakamura should be “awarded his attorney’s fees and costs.”

The first approximately seven pages (Part A) of the Argument focus on the personal jurisdiction of the Missouri court over Nakamura. It succinctly states: “Indeed, Plaintiff does not—and cannot—plead any facts demonstrating the existence of personal jurisdiction in Missouri over Mr. Nakamura.”

It adds: “Indeed, Mr. Nakamura is not mentioned until the fifth page of the Amended Complaint, and only sparsely thereafter. Plaintiff asserts that his relationship with Mr. Nakamura has been ‘acrimonious’ for ‘several years.'”

A lengthy explanation of Missouri’s long-arm statute, which could extend “jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant,” concludes with: “Missouri’s long-arm statute does not reach Mr. Nakamura in this case.” The document asserts Nakamura was not in Missouri when he expressed his opinions online and did not participate in the Sinquefield Cup, surmising that the state cannot have personal jurisdiction over the Defendant.

In addition, citing the “effects test” of Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), the following statement is made: “Plaintiff does not and cannot allege that Mr. Nakamura, an international chess personality (see Am. Compl., Doc. 20, ¶¶ 54-55), somehow acted in a way uniquely aimed at Missouri and knowingly caused the brunt of any supposed harm in Ml Defendants.”

In Part B of the Argument, with regard to Plaintiff Niemann’s antitrust allegations of “a violation of the Sherman Act by all Defendants,” the claims are dismissed. It cites Hurley v. National Basketball Players Association: “The court had little difficulty rejecting the Sherman Act claim” in that previous instance.

It adds: “Plaintiff does not and cannot allege that Mr. Nakamura controls some undefined market in such a way that could cause an antitrust violation.”

Citing Carlsen’s motion to dismiss from last week: “Plaintiff’s Counts I, II, IV, and V should be dismissed pursuant to Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP law,” adding that Nakamura should be “awarded his attorneys’ fees and costs.”

Finally, the Argument rejects all claims. “Plaintiff fails to identify specifically which of Mr. Nakamura’s alleged statements form the basis of his claims.” The document goes on to list six alleged statements by Nakamura, writing that “Plaintiff was required to, but failed to, plausibly allege actual malice,” including:

“Mr. Nakamura’s alleged re-Tweeting of a Tweet from Twitter from an account named
‘Unsubstantiated Chess Rumors’ (id., ¶ 99) is not an actionable statement of fact—the
Twitter account re-Tweeted was quite literally named Unsubstantiated Chess Rumors.”

The final paragraph of the argument states: “Plaintiff has not adequately alleged that Mr. Nakamura had knowledge of the purported contracts or business expectancies with which he supposedly interfered.”

Niemann’s defamation lawsuit seeks at least $100 million in damages against each of the defendants: Carlsen, Nakamura, Chess.com, the Play Magnus Group, and Rensch. What has become the chess world’s largest scandal in recent years has gripped the community since the Sinquefield Cup in September 2022, with more developments surely still to come.

Previous coverage:


Source link

Tinggalkan Balasan