NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEFFREY PETERSON,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. GANNETT COMPANY, INC.; PHOENIX NEWSPAPERS, INC., DBA Arizona Republic,
Defendants

- Appellees,
and DENNIS K. BURKE; MARCO A. LOPEZ, Jr.; LUIS BORBON HOLGUIN; VICTOR FLORES; LISA FLORES; MARIO E. DIAZ; SUZANNE BARR; DAVID LOPEZ; CRAIG HARRIS; DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE; DIAZ, Unknown; named as Jane Doe Diaz,
Defendants. No. 21

- 15057
D.C. No. 2:20

- cv - 00106

- MTL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 16, 2021 Phoenix, Arizona

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

NOV 24 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 Before: GILMAN, * * BRESS, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Jeffrey Peterson appeals the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) of Peterson’s defamation claim against Gannett Company and Phoenix Newspapers, regarding an article that defendants published on Peterson’s business dealings. We review the district court’s grant of a motion to
dismiss de novo. Knievel v. ESPN , 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. To determine the legal standard t hat applies to Peterson’s defamation claim, we must first determine if he was a limited public figure . If he is, Peterson
must show that the article was published with actual malice, “that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” N

. Y

. Times
Co. v. Sullivan , 376 U.S. 254 , 2 80 (1964). The district court correctly concluded that , based on the allegations of Peterson’s operative complaint, Peterson is a limited public figure with respect to the subject of the news article. “Whether an individual is a public figure is a question of law that must be assessed through a totality of the circumstances.” Manzari v. Associated Newspapers Ltd. , 830 F.3d 881, 888 (9th Cir. 2016). “In undertaking

** The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.3 this inquiry, we consider whether (i) a public controversy existed when the statements were made, (ii) whether the alleged defamation is related to the plaintiff’s participation in the controversy, and (iii) whether the plaintiff voluntaril y injected [ him ] self into the controversy for the purpose of influencing the controversy’s
ultimate resolution.” Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC , 715 F.3d 254, 266 (9th Cir. 2013). By these standards, Peterson is a limited

- purpose public figure. Peter son’s complaint describes himself as a “well

- known technology entrepreneur” who founded Quepasa.com (“a national sensation”) and who has developed and maintained a network of political connections to further his business enterprises.
The article discusses Peterson’s business dealings at Quepasa and controversies concerning Peterson’s role in Mobile, another business venture

. Given “the nature and extent of [Peterson’s] participation in the particular controversy giving rise to the defamation,” Makaeff , 71 5 F.3d at 266 ( citation and internal quotation marks omitted)

— as well as the public nature of that controversy, which involved various other public figures and resulted in a state investigation of Peterson’s business practices

— we conclude that Peterson is a limited public figure with respect to the business dealings discussed in the article. Peterson’s claim that his public

- figure status ended long ago is inconsistent with the allegations in his complaint. Regardless, as we have previously noted, “e very court of appeals that has4 specifically decided th is question has concluded that the passage of time does not alter an individual’s status as a limited purpose public figure.” Partington v. Bugliosi , 56 F.3d 1147, 1152 n.8 (9th Cir. 1995)

. 2. Because Peterson is a limited public figure, he “must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence ” that appellees made their allegedly defamatory
statements with actual malice. Makaeff , 715 F.3d at 265

. We have carefully reviewed Peterson’s operative complaint and conclude that he has not alleged actual
malice. Peterson’s conclusory allegations do not “permit the conclusion that [a ppellees] in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of [ their ] publication.” Time, Inc. v. Pape , 401 U.S. 279, 291

– 92 (19 71). 1
AFF I R MED
.

1 Peterson does not dispute the district court’s conclusion that he failed to allege actual malice with respect to his false

- light claim

. Peterson has t herefore abandoned this claim. See United States v. Williamson , 439 F.3d 1125, 1138 (9th Cir. 2006). Regardless, Peterson did not plead actual malice as to his false

- light claim for the same reasons articulated above.