The opinion of the court was delivered by: McLaughlin, J.
The issue before the Court is whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would apply the discovery rule to toll the statute of limitations in a mass-media defamation case. The Court holds that it would not.
Arthur Alan Wolk, a well-known aviation attorney, has sued Overlawyered.com for defamation, false light, and intentional interference with prospective contractual relations arising out of an article published on that website. The plaintiff also names as defendants Walter K. Olson, Theodore H. Frank, David M. Nierporent, and The Overlawyered Group.
The defendants move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the case was not brought within the statute of limitations and the complaint fails to state a claim. The Court will grant the defendant's motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds.
The plaintiff is perhaps the most prominent aviation attorney in the country. Compl. ¶ 13. Overlawyered.com is a public website that attracts more than 9,000 unique daily visitors, including tens of thousands of lawyers and other professionals. Compl. ¶¶ 22-24, 39.
In 2002, the court in Taylor v. Teledyne Tech., Inc., issued a discovery order critical of the plaintiff's conduct, but the plaintiff was not personally involved in any of the asserted conduct. Compl. ¶ 30. The trial judge subsequently vacated the order and sealed it from publication. Compl. ¶ 31. Thereafter, the parties settled the case. Compl. ¶ 32.
On April 8, 2007, Mr. Frank wrote an article (the "Frank Article") for Overlawyered.com, and Mr. Olson and Mr. Nierporent edited it. Compl. ¶ 37. The article commented on the chain of events leading to settlement in the Taylor case:
Did Wolk's client suffer from a reduced settlement so that his attorney could avoid having the order used against him in other litigation? [I]f, as seems to be the case, the N.D. Ga. failed to [disclose a potential conflict of interest], one really wishes courts would do more to protect fiduciaries of plaintiffs' attorneys before signing off on settlements. Compl. ¶ 38.
In April 2009, the plaintiff discovered the Frank Article. Compl. ¶ 47. He immediately contacted Mr. Frank and demanded that all articles relating to the plaintiff be removed from Overlawyered.com. Compl. ¶ 48. The defendants refused to retract the Frank Article, which remained accessible on the website at the time the plaintiff filed his complaint. Compl. ¶ 49.
The plaintiff commenced this suit on May 12, 2009, by filing a praecipe for a writ of summons in the Court of Common Pleas. After removing the case to federal court, the defendant moved for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Under this rule, a court may dismiss an action if the complaint shows facial noncompliance with the statute of limitations. Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380, 1385 n.1 (3d Cir. 1994); see also Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007).
Pennsylvania's one-year statute of limitations for defamation applies to all three claims.*fn1 See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5523(a) (2010); Menichini v. Grant, 995 F.2d 1224, 1228 n.2 (3d Cir. 1993). The statute began to run from the time of publication. See Dominiak v. Nat'l Enquirer, 266 A.2d 626, 629-30 (Pa. 1970). Mr. Frank published the article on April 8, 2007, with the result that the limitations window closed on April 8, 2008. The plaintiff's action, therefore, was time-barred when he commenced it on May 12, 2009, unless some tolling principle had tolled the statute.
The discovery rule represents a potential tolling principle. It accounts for a plaintiff's "inability . . . despite the exercise of reasonable diligence, to know that he is injured and by what cause." Fine v. Checcio, 870 A.2d 850, 858 (Pa. 2005). The plaintiff claims that the discovery rule should apply to toll the statute of limitations ...