UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INDIG EN OUS PEOPLE OF BIAFRA , Plaintiff,

v.
IVAN SASCHA SHEEHAN , et al. , Defendant s
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 2 1

- 274 3 (RBW)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
T he pl aintiff , Indig enous People of Biaf ra , b rings this civil actio n again st t he defendants,
Ivan Sheehan and The Washington Times, L L C ( “ T he Times ” ) , s ee Complaint ( “ Compl. ” ) at 1,
ECF No. 1 , asserting common law c lai ms of defamation , see i d

. ¶¶ 27

– 110. Currently pending
before the Court are (1) S h e e h a n ’ s motion to dismis s pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)( 2) and 12(b)(6) , s ee Motion by Defendant Ivan Sascha Sheehan To Dismiss
Plaintif f

’s Complaint ( “ Sheehan ’ s Mot. ” o r “ Sheehan ’ s motion ” ) at 1 , ECF No

. 1 3 ; (2) The
Times ’ s motio n to dismi ss pursuant to Rules 12(b )( 1 ) and 12(b)(6) , s ee Defendant The Washington Times, LLC’s Mot ion to Dismiss ( “ The Times ’ s Mot. ” or “ The Time s ’ s motion ” ) at
1 , ECF No. 1 4 ; a nd (3) the plaintiff ’s two motions for leave to file supplemental authorit ies, see
Plaintiff ’s Motion to Submit Su pplemental Authority ( “Pl. ’s 1st Supp. Auth

. Mot. ”) at 1 , ECF
No. 19 ; Plaintiff ’s Motion t o Submit Supplemental Authority ( “Pl. ’s 2d Supp. Aut h

. Mot. ”) at 1,
ECF No. 20. Upon car eful consideration of th e parties ’ submissions, 1 the Court concludes for

1 In add ition to the f ili n gs al ready i de ntifie d , th e Co u r t cons idered the follo wing su bm issions in re ndering it s deci sio n : (1) the Memorandum of Points and A u tho rities in Support of Professor Sheehan’s Motion t o Dismi ss (“ Sheehan ’ s Mem .” ) , EC F No. 1 3

- 1 ; (2) t h e Pl aintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant Sheehan’s Mot ion to Dismiss ( “ Pl. ’ s Opp ’ n to Sheehan ” ), E CF No. 1 5 ; (3 ) the Reply Memorandum in Further S u p port of Professor Sheehan’s Motion to Dis miss ( “ S heehan ’ s R epl y ” ), E CF No. 1 8 ; (4 ) the Declaration of Ivan Sascha Sheehan in (conti nued . . .)2 the following reasons that it m us t gra nt The Times ’ s m otion to the extent that it seeks d ismissal
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) ; deny as moot T he Time s ’ s motion to the extent that it seeks dismissal
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6); sua sponte dismiss the claims against Shee han pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) ; and deny as moot the plaintiff ’ s t wo motions for leave to fi le supplemental authorities

. I. BACKGROUN D
A. Factual Background
Th e plaintiff is a “[ c ] ommunity [i] nterest [c] om pany [,] ” registered in the United Kingdom and “h eadquartered in London , ” whose “ missi on is to secure a sover ei gnt y referendum
on Bia fra [ 2 ] to be organized and conducted by the Unite d N a t ions by p eaceful means

. ” Compl. ¶ 4

. O n Octobe r 4 , 2021, The Times , “ a news p a per compan y p ublish ed in Washington, D. C.[,] ”
id. ¶ 7, publ i shed an O p - E d by Sheehan ( “ the Article ” ) , 3 i d. ¶ 8, “ the executive director of the
School of Public and International Affairs a t the University of Baltimore[ ,] ” id. ¶ 5, titled

“ U [nited States] i gnores s mall African ter ror is t group at its peril [,] ” i d. ¶ 8. In the article , see
Sh eehan ’ s Mot. , Exhi bit ( “ Ex. ” ) A (Sheeh an, U.S. ignores small African terrorist group IPO B at its peri l , Was h Times (Oct. 4, 2021) ( “ Article ” )) at 1, ECF No. 13

- 3 , Sh eehan argues that the

“ S tate Department ne eds to designate [the plaintiff] as a foreign t errori st organizatio n[,] ” id. at 2,

(.

. . continue d) Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss ( “ Sh eeha n D ec l

. ” ) , ECF No. 13

- 2 ; ( 5 ) the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of The W ashington Times, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss ( “ Th e Times ’ s Mem. ” ), ECF No . 14

- 1 ; ( 6 ) the Plain tiff ’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant The Washington Times’ Motion to Dismiss ( “ P l. ’ s Opp ’ n to T he Times ” ) , ECF N o. 16; ( 7 ) the Defend ant The Washington Times , LLC’s Reply Brief i n Further Support of its Motion to Dismiss ( “ The Times ’ s Reply ” ) , ECF No. 17 ; (8) Sheehan ’ s Opposition to Plaintiff ’ s Motion to Submit Sup plemental Authority ( “ Sheeh an ’ s Supp. Auth

. Opp ’ n ” ), EC F No. 21; and (9) the Defendants ’ Oppositi o n to Plaintiff ’ s Motion to Submit Supplemental Authority ( “ The Times ’ s Supp. Auth

. Opp ’ n ” ), EC F No. 22.

2 The “ Biafra homeland [] , ” se e Pl. ’ s Opp ’ n to The Times at 8, is compri s ed of “ fi ve I gbo

- majority regio n s in south[]eastern Nigeria [,] ” i d. at 6.

3 The Article was published digita lly on October 4, 2021, and in print on October 5, 2021

. See Pl. ’ s Opp ’ n to Sheehan at 3.3 and mak es multiple claims regarding “ violent [ ] attack s ” alleged l y carri ed out by the plaintiff , i d. at 5

. A ccording to the plaintiff, “ [t]he article conta ined [ se v en ] defamatory falsehoods about [ the plaintiff that were ] published w ith ill will and w ith knowledge of their falsity or wit h
reckless dis regard [for] w hethe r they were true[.] ” Compl

. ¶ 9

. These p urported “ defamatory falsehoods [ allegedly ] subjected [the plaintiff ] to profess ional an d social ostracism and curtailment of its ability to attract members an d donatio ns[,] ” id. ¶ 26, as well as “ damage to [the p] laintiff ’ s reputation in an amount to be prov en at trial [,] ” i d. ¶ ¶ 29, 33, 37, 41, 45, 49, 53, 57, 61, 65, 69, 73, 77, 81, 85, 89, 93, 97, 101, 105, 109

. B. Proced ural History
O n October 17, 2021 , the plaintiff file d its C ompl a i n t in this case , see Compl. a t 16 , asserting twenty

- one counts of d ef amation , see id. ¶¶ 27

– 110. O n December 14, 2 0 21, both
defendants filed their motions to dismiss

. S ee The Time s ’ s Mot. at 1; Sheehan ’ s Mot. at 2

. O n January 10 , 2022, the plaintiff filed its oppositions to both mo tions

. S ee Pl. ’ s Opp ’ n to The
T imes at 1; Pl. ’ s Op p ’ n to Sheehan at 1

. O n January 25 , 2022, Sheehan filed his reply in support
of his motion , see Sheehan ’ s Reply at 1 , and on Janu ary 18 , 2022, The Times filed its reply in support of its motion, see The T imes ’ s Reply at 1. On March 11, 2022, t he plain tiff filed its first motion for leave to file supplemental authority in support of its opposition to the motions to dismiss , which constituted a copy of what
it repr ese n ts is a “ def amation opinion issued by t he Supreme Court of New York on March 8,
2022 , ” in “ Smar tmatic U .S. Corp. v. Fox Corporation [.] ” Pl. ’ s 1 st Supp . Auth

. Mot. at 1

. 4 On August 1 3, 202 2, the plaintiff filed its second motion for leav e to fil e additional supplemental

4 Although the pl aintiff rep resent s that “ [a] copy o f the opin ion is appended ” to it s first motion for leave to file a supplementa l authority, Pl. ’ s 1st Supp. Auth

. Mot. at 1, the attached one - page document is illegible as ha l f of the page is obscure d by a meta data panel , see i d. , Exhibi t ( “ Ex. ” ) 1 ( Smartmatic v. FOX

– Ord er on MTD

– 3

- 8

- 2022 ) at 1, ECF N o. 19

- 1.4 authority, which consti tuted a copy of “ a July 20, 2022[ ] Opinion of the United Nations Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Det ention[.] ” Pl. ’ s 2d Supp. Auth

. Mot. at 1 ; see
id. , Ex. 1 ( Hum. Rts. Coun cil, Worki ng Gr p
. on Arbitrary Det

. , Op

. No. 25/202 2 concerning Mr

. Nwannekaenyi Nnamdi Kenny Okwu

- Kanu (Nigeria and Kenya ) , U.N. D oc.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/2 5 ( July 20, 20 22) ) at 1, EC F No. 20

- 1. On August 29, 2022, both
defendant s filed oppositions to the pla intiff ’ s second motion for leave to fil e suppleme ntal authority. See Sheehan ’ s Supp. Auth

. Opp ’ n at 1; The Times ’ s Supp. Auth

. Opp ’ n at 1.
II. STANDAR D OF RE VIEW
F eder al di strict courts are cour ts of l imited j u risdiction , see Kokkonen v. Gu ard ian Life
In s. Co. of Am. , 511 U.S. 375, 3 7 7 (19 9 4), and ther efore, “[a] motion fo r d ismissal un der [Federal Rule o f Civi l Procedure] 12(b )(1) ‘present s a thresho ld challen ge t o the [C]o urt ’ s j urisdiction[ , ]’ ” Mor ro w v. Uni t ed States , 723 F. Supp. 2d 71, 75 (D.D.C

. 20 10) (Walton, J.) (quoting Haase v . S essi ons , 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C. C ir

. 1987)). T hus, the Cou rt is o bligat e d to
dismiss a c laim if it “l ack[s] [ ] subject

- mat t e r ju risdi ction[. ]” Fed. R. Civ . P. 12 (b)(1). And,
becau se “it is to be pres ume d that a c a use lies outside [ ] [the Court ’ s ] l imit ed jurisd iction,”
Kokkonen , 511 U .S. at 377 , “the plaint iff bea rs the burden of pro[ving ]” that the Court has jurisdicti on o v er t he pl aintiff ’ s claims, Luja n v. De fs. of W i ldlife , 50 4 U.S. 555, 561 (199 2). Additionally, “ sub ject matter jurisdiction may not be waived , and . . . courts may ra ise the issue

sua spont e
. ” Poblete v. U.S. Marshals Service , 207 F. Supp. 3d 1, 2 (D.D.C 2016 ) , quoting
Ne tworkIP, LLC v. FCC , 548 F.3d 116, 120 ( D.C. Cir. 20 08 ) (internal citations omitted)

.

“ Inde ed, a federal court must raise the issue [ .] ” Poblete , 207 F. Supp at 2.
In deci d in g a motion to dismiss based upo n a l ack of subjec t

- matter jurisdiction, the
Court “n eed not limi t itsel f to t h e allegations of t he complain t.” Grand Lodge of t he Fr a t er nal5 O rd

. of Police v. Ashcr oft , 18 5 F. Sup p . 2d 9, 14 (D.D .C. 2001). Rat her , the “[ C ]o urt may
consider such materials o u ts ide the plead ings as it deems approp ri ate to res olve the que stion [ of]
wh e ther it has jurisd iction to h ear the cas e.” Scola ro v
. D.C . Bd. of Ele ctions & Ethics , 104 F

. Supp. 2 d 18, 22 ( D.D.C . 2000); see al so Jerome S t ev ens Pharms., Inc. v. Food & Dru g
A dm in. , 402 F.3d 1249, 1253 (D.C. Cir. 20 05). Addi tionally, th e Court must “ assume the truth

o f all mater ial factual allegatio ns i n the comp laint a nd ‘construe th e com pl aint lib e rally, gra nting [the] plaintif f t he benef i t of all inferences that can be d er i ve d fr om the fa cts alleged[.]’ ” Am.
Na t ’ l Ins. Co. v. Fed. De posit In s. Cor p
. , 642 F.3d 1137, 1139 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Thoma s

v. Princ ipi , 3 94 F.3d 970, 972 (D.C

. Cir. 20 0 5 )). Howe ver, “the [p]laintiff ’ s factual al legations in the complaint

. . . w il l bea r closer scrutiny in resolving a 1 2(b)(1) mo tion than i n resolv ing

a 1 2(b)(6) motion fo r failure t o state a cl aim.” Gr and L o d ge , 185 F. Sup p. 2d at 13

– 14 ( alter at ions in o ri ginal) (inte rnal quotation m ar ks omitt e d)

. III. ANALYSIS
The Cour t will fi r st consider The Times ’ s motion to dismiss, before address ing Sheehan ’ s
motion to dismis s
. 5 F o r the following reasons, the Court will gra nt The Times ’ s motion to the
extent that it seeks dismissal pu r suant to Rule 1 2(b)(1) ; deny as moot T he Times ’ s motion to the

extent that it seeks dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6); deny as moot Sheehan ’ s motion to
dismiss ; and deny as moot the plaintiff ’ s two motions for leave to fi le supplemental authorities

. A. T he Times ’ s Motion to Dismis s
The Ti m e s argues that the Court “ s hould dismiss [ the ] Complaint pu rsuant to
Rul e 12 (b)(1) for lack of [s]ubject[

- m]at ter jurisdiction because [the p] laintiff cannot satisfy the amount[

- ]in[

- ] controversy require ments of diversit y jurisdiction. ” Th e Times ’s Mem. a t 7

5 The plai ntiff ’ s m o tions for leave to file supplemental aut hority will be considered in conju nction with the moti ons to dismiss.6 (capitalization omitted). T he plaintiff argues in response that it has met the amount

- in

controversy requ irement due to (1) “ the financial dea th penalty IPOB would suffer, if as [the d]efendant a nd [sic ] states and argues , IPOB is lis ted by the Secretary of State as a foreign terrorist organization [,] ” Pl

. ’ s Opp ’ n to The Times at 1 4

– 1 5 , which “ clearly exceeds $75,000 in
value , ” id. at 15 , as “ [i]t would prohibit any material assistance t o IPOB in definitel y [,] ” id. ; and ( 2 ) punitive damages , see id. The Co urt agrees with The Times that it lacks jurisdiction over the plain tiff ’ s Complaint

.

“ Di ve rsity juri sdic tion requires an amount

- in

- controversy ex c e eding $75 ,000 and . . . a dispute between cit izens of a State an d c itizens or subjects of a foreign state. ” BYD Co. Ltd. v.
All. for Am. Mfg. , 5 54 F. S upp . 3d 1 , 6 (D.D .C. 20 21) (quoting 28 U .S. C. § 1332 (a) )

. “ I n determining whether an action m eets ” the $75,000 amount

- in

- controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) , “ the su m cla im ed by the plaintiff controls if the clai m is apparently made in

go od faith. ” Bronner v. Dugan , 364 F . S upp. 3d 9, 17 (D

. D.C

. 20 19 ) (citation s omitted)

. Although “ a plaintiff need not provide an exact valuation o r detailed breakdown o f damage s at

t he outset of litigation , . . . it does not follow that any unsupported claim will suffice [ , ] ” and
dism issal is “ wa rranted i f

. . . the [p ar ty] submits no
. . . ev iden ce supporting [its] alleged injury. ”
Bronner ex rel. Am . St ud. Ass ’ n v. Duggan , 96 2 F. 3d 5 96 , 610 (D.C. Cir. 2020) ( emphasis in original) ( internal citations omitted)

. However, b ecause “ the law is g ener ous to plaintiffs on

a mou nts [

- ] i n [

- ] con trove rsy, ” BY D C o
. L td

. , 554 F. Sup p. a t 7 , courts will dismiss a plaint if f

’ s

a ctio n for fai lure to satisfy the amoun t

- in

- con trov er s y requirements only i f it appears “ to a legal

ce rtainty that [the p]laintiff ’ s cl aims are really fo r less than the ju risdict ional a mou nt. ” B ron ner , 364 F. Sup p. 3d at 17 ( qu oting St. Paul Mercury I ndem. Co. v. Red Cab Bo

. , 303 U.S. 283, 288 (19 38))

. Here , the plaintiff allege s in its Complaint that the Op

- Ed subjected it to (1)7 reputational damages , see Compl . ¶¶ 29, 33, 37 , 41, 45, 49, 53, 57, 61, 65, 69, 73, 77, 81, 85, 89, 93, 97, 101, 105, 109 ; (2) “ professional and s ocial ostracism, ” id. ¶ 26 ; and (3) “ curtailm ent of its ability to attract members and donations , ” id. The Court starts its analysis noting that because the plaintiff is a comp any, and “ a

c o[mpany] suing fo r defamation

. . . may o nly recover damages in th e form of l o st profits , ” see
Art

- Me tal U. S.A., Inc. v. U nited States , 753 F.2d 1 151, 1156 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ( internal c it ations omitted) , it “ cannot rely on rep utational damages to establish jurisdiction [,] ” BYD Co. Ltd. , No.
20

- c v - 3458 (TNM) , 2021 W L 15644 45 , at * 2 ( D.D.C. April 21, 2021)

. See id. ( holding that a

c or pora tion “ can no t rely on reputational damages to es tabl ish ju risdiction

. ” Rather, as already noted, a company “ m ay only rec over actual damages in the form of lost p rofits. ” )

. Accordingly,
abs ent a showing t hat the harm to t he plaintiff ’ s rep utation r esulted or will result in lost profits, neither the plaintiff ’ s allegations of rep utational damages, see Compl. ¶¶ 29, 33, 37, 41, 45, 49, 53, 57, 61, 65, 69, 73, 77, 81, 85, 89, 93, 97, 101, 105, 109 , nor its al legations of “ pr o f essional and social ostracism, ” id. ¶ 26 , a form of re putational damage, contribute to satisfying the $75,000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction

. Furthermore, t he Court c oncludes that the plaintiff has not alleg ed any p otential “lost profits[,] ” BYD Co. Ltd. , 2021 WL 1564 445, at * 2 , sufficient to m e et the $75,000 threshold. Although the p laintiff makes a generalized theoretical assertion that “the amount[

- ]in [

- ]controversy exceeds $75,000 , ” Comp l. ¶ 1 , and that “[t]he i ntent and effect of [the allegedly] def amatory falsehoods [ ] subjected [ the plaintiff ] to . . . curt a i lment of its ability to
attract members and donations[,] ” id. ¶ 26, it does not provide any allegations as to how the

“ curtailment of its ability to attr act members and donations [,] ” id. , will or has resulted in lost profits

. See generally id

. Indee d, the Complaint pro vides no “ further factual development as to8 actua l losses or even potential losses. ” Hindu Am

. Found

. v. Viswanath , No. 21

- cv - 1268 (A PM) , 2022 WL 7823 89 , at *2 (D.D.C. Mar. 15, 2022) ; see i d. (holding that the Hindu
American Foundatio n ha d not met th e amount

- i n - controversy requirement when it merely
asserted that “ it ha[d] lost and/or e xpended and/or will lose and/or expend at le ast $75,000 as a result of [the alleged ] events [ ; ] ” “ it ha [d] suffered, or w [ould] suffer, lost donations in an amou nt

t o be pr o ven at trial, and which exceed [e d] $75,000 [ ; ] ” an d “ the chall enged conduct ha [d] injured an d w [ould] cause f urther s ubstantial i njury to [i ts] reputation and ability to fundraise ” ).
T he plaintiff asserts in its opp osition to T he Times ’ s motion that “ the amount [

- ]in[

- ]controversy includes, among other t hings, the financial de ath penalty [that it ] would suffer ” in th e event that
it was “ listed by the Secretary of State as a foreign terrorist organization[,] ” which “ clearly exceeds $75,000. ” Pl. ’ s Opp ’ n to The Ti m es at 14

– 1 5. However, like its Complaint, the plaintiff ’ s opposition “ contains [no] f urther factual devel opment ” beyond this specula tive
assertion , Hindu Am. Fou nd , 2022 WL 7822389, at *2 , that would enable the Court to conclude
that the alleged “ financi a l de ath penal ty ” “ exceeds $75,000 [,] ” Pl. ’ s Opp ’ n to The Times at 1 4

. See general ly id. at 1 3

– 15. Instea d, the plaintiff ’ s “ theory appears to be based on a speculati ve expectation that it may lose donations at some undefined future time [, ] ” and thus “ the [C]ourt is
left questioning whether [the p]laintiff has lost anyth ing at all. ” Hind u Am. Found , 2022, WL 7822389, at * 2.
F inally, t he plaintif f argues tha t its potential award of “ punitive damages

. . . must [also]
be considered

. . . in determining [ the ] jurisdictio n al amount. ” Pl. ’ s Opp ’ n to The Times at 14 (quot ing Bell v. Preferred Life As surance Soc ’ y , 320 U. S. 238, 240 (1943) ). However, even assuming that an award of p unitive damages would be appropriate, the plaintiff has failed to provide any basis on wh ich to conclude t hat a puni tive damages award would exceed $75,000.9 See generally Compl.; Pl. ’ s Opp ’ n to The Times. “ I n applyin g the legal c ertainty t est wh ere the

a va ilability of punitive damages is the sine qua non of federal jurisdiction [,] a Dist rict Court
shoul d sc ru tinize [a] punit ive damage [s] claim to ensure that it has at least a colo rable basis in
law an d fact.” Kahal v. J. W. Wilson & Assocs

. , In c. , 673 F. 2 d 547 , 549 (D.C. Cir. 198 2). “Liberal pleading rules are not a license for plaintiff s to shoehorn es s ential ly local actions i nto federal court through extravagant or invalid punit ive damage claims.” Id

. Moreo ver, “ t he Supreme Court has sharply restr ict e d the size of punitive damages a wards, stating that few awards exceeding a single

- dig it ratio between punitive and co mpensa tory damag es, to a significant degree, will satisfy due p rocess
. ” Szymkowi cz v. Frisch , No. 1 9

- cv - 3329 (B AH ),
2020 W L 44322 4 0, at * 5 (D.D.C. July 31, 2020) ( quoting Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker , 554
U. S. 471, 501 (200 8 ) ) (internal quo t ation mark s om it ted) ; see Stat e Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. C o . v.
Ca mpb ell , 538 U.S. 408, 425 (2003) ( sta ting that p un itive d amages “ of more than four times the amount of compensatory damage s might be c lose to the line of constitut ional im propriet y ” ). As

no ted above , the p l aintiff has not shown a non - specula tive basis in either its Complaint or its

o pposit ion for even a non - de minim i s award of compensatory damages

. See generally Compl. ;
Pl. ’ s Opp ’ n to The Times

. Consequently, even when adding a potential puniti ve damages award
of four times , see State Farm , 538 U.S. at 425

— or even ten times , as requested by th e plain tiff,

see Compl. at 16

— to the amount of non - speculative c ompensatory damages the plaintiff has factually shown can be awarded in this case , the plaintiff “ still falls sho rt of satisf ying the

amount

- in

- controversy requirement [,] ” B YD Co. Ltd. , 20 2 1 WL 15644 45, at *4. See Symkowicz v. Frisch , 2020 WL 4432240, at *9 ( “ [F]our

— or, for that matter, ten, times a de
minimus amoun t is still less than $75,000

. ” ).10 B ecause the plaintiff h a s o ffered little mor e tha n a “bare

- b o nes assertion of jurisdicti onal
sufficien cy t o suggest th at the moneta ry damag es ar isi ng from [ the pla intiff ’ s ]

. . . claims even

remot ely approach $75,0 00 [,] ” Bronner , 962 F.3d at 610 , the Court concludes that the plaintiff
has failed to establish divers i ty jurisdictio n and thus the Court lack s subject

- matter jurisdiction.
Accordi ngly, the Court will grant The Times ’ s motion to the extent that i t seeks dismissa l

pursua nt to Rule 12(b)(1), deny as moot The Times ’ s motion to the extent t hat it seeks d ismiss al
pursuant to Rule 12(b ) (6), and dismiss the plaintiff ’s claims against The Times

. B. Sheehan ’s Motion to Dismis s
The Court n ext turns to Sheehan ’ s motion to dism i ss. In his motion, Sheehan “ move[s] to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) [,] ” a sser ting that (1) “ th e Court
does not h ave personal jurisdiction over ” him unde r the District of Co lumb ia ’ s long

- arm statute
because “ he did not cau se tortious injury in the District ‘ by an act or omission in the District[ , ] ’ ” and (2) the Complaint “ fail[s] to state a claim upon whic h relief ca n be granted[.] ” Sheehan ’ s
Mem. at 3. Although Sh eehan doe s not move for dismiss al pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) i n its motion
and supporting memorandum, see g eneral ly Sheehan ’s Mot.; Sheehan ’s Mem. , in his reply, he “adopts by reference the argume nts advanced b y T he [ ] Times ” in The Times ’s memorandum, “including th e a rgumen t that this Court lacks su bject [

- ]matter jurisdiction , which appl [ies] with equal force to the claims asserted by [the p]laintiff against [ ] Sheehan [,] ” Sheehan ’s Reply at 2

n .2. “ T he fundamental question of whether a federal court lacks subject[

- ]matter jur isdiction may be raised by a cour t on its own initiative, or by a party, at any stage of litigation. ”
Eisenbeiser v. Chertoff , 448 F. Supp. 2d 106, 109 (D.D.C. 2006) ( citi ng Kontrick v. Ryan , 540 U.S. 443, 4 55 (200 4) ) . And, a s di vers ity j u risdiction is the sole basis upon which the plai ntiff11 asser t s that th is Court has subject

- matter jurisdiction in this case , including the plain tiff ’ s claims against Sheehan, see Compl. ¶ 1, the Court ’ s conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to alleg e that
the amount

- i n - con t roversy exc eeds $75,000 , see su pra Section III.A, requires dismissal of the plaintiff ’ s Complaint as to its claims against Sheehan as well

. Accordingl y, the Court ha v ing already concluded that it must dismiss the plaintiff ’ s Complaint for failure to satisfy the amou nt

in

- contr oversy requirement , the Court concludes that the plaintiff ’ s claims against Sheehan m ust
also be dismissed

. 6

IV. CONCLUSION
Fo r th e f orego ing re as o n s , the Cou rt c oncludes that i t m us t gra nt The Times ’s motion to
the extent that it seeks dismissal purs uant to Rule 12(b)(1) ; deny as moot T he Times ’s motion to
the ex tent that it seeks dismi ssal pursuant to Ru l e 12(b)(6); sua sponte dismiss the claims a gai nst
Sheeha n pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) ; and deny as moot the plaintiff ’s two motions for leave to fi le supplemental authorities

. 7
S O ORDERED th i s 30 th da y of November , 2022

. 8

REGG IE B. WAL TO N United St at es Dist r i ct Ju dge

6 Because bot h of the supplemental authorit ies for which the plaintiff sought leave to file concern whether the p laintiff ’ s Complaint fails to s t ate a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and not whether the Court lacks juri sdiction under Rule 12(b)( 1) , se e Pl. ’ s 1st Supp. Auth

. Mot. at 1 ( stating that the supplemental authority concerns “ the issue of whether [ it] adeq ua tely alleged actual malice an d false s t atements of fact ” ); Pl. ’ s 2 d Supp. Auth

. Mot. at 1 (stating that th e supplemental authorit y “ b ears on the fals ity of the [d]efe ndant s ’ assertion that [t he p ]laintiff should be listed as a foreign terrorist organization under Unit ed States law ” ), the Court wi ll deny both mo tions as moot.

8 Th e C ourt will c ont empor an eousl y is sue an Ord e r con s istent w i th t hi s Memorand um Opi ni o n.