Almeciga v. Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc.
185 F. Supp. 3d 401 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An oral agreement that by its terms cannot be fully performed within one year, such as a promise to maintain confidentiality indefinitely, is void under the Statute of Frauds. A plaintiff cannot circumvent this statutory bar by re-characterizing a breach of contract claim as a claim for fraud or unjust enrichment.
Facts:
- Erica Almeciga was the romantic partner of Rosalio Reta, an imprisoned former member of the Los Zetas Drug Cartel.
- In March 2012, Bruce Livesey, a producer for the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR), contacted Almeciga for an interview for a story about Reta.
- Almeciga met with CIR producers Livesey and Josiah Hooper for an interview on August 14, 2012.
- Almeciga alleged that her participation was conditioned on an explicit oral agreement with the producers that they would conceal her identity in the final report.
- In late 2013, CIR and its partner, Univision, published the video report on YouTube, featuring Almeciga without her identity being concealed.
- Almeciga claimed that as a result of her identity being revealed, she suffered from public humiliation, threatening remarks, and overwhelming fear of retribution from the Los Zetas cartel.
- After Almeciga's counsel sent a cease-and-desist letter in 2014, CIR produced a standard release form, purportedly signed by Almeciga, authorizing the use of her likeness.
- Almeciga denied ever having seen or signed the release, claiming it was a forgery.
Procedural Posture:
- Erica Almeciga filed suit against CIR, its producers, and Univision in New York Supreme Court, a state trial court.
- The defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York based on diversity jurisdiction, arguing the New York-based Univision defendants were fraudulently joined.
- Almeciga filed a motion to remand the case to state court, while the Univision defendants moved to dismiss the claims against them.
- The District Court denied Almeciga's motion to remand and granted the Univision defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice.
- Defendant CIR then filed a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings on the remaining claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does New York's Statute of Frauds bar a breach of contract claim based on an alleged oral agreement to conceal a person's identity in perpetuity?
Opinions:
Majority - Rakoff, J.
Yes. An oral agreement to conceal a person's identity indefinitely is not capable of complete performance within one year and is therefore void under New York's Statute of Frauds. New York’s Statute of Frauds, N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law. § 5-701(a)(1), renders void any oral contract that cannot be fully performed within one year. The alleged agreement to conceal Almeciga's identity was intended to last in perpetuity; therefore, CIR's obligation was ongoing and could not be completed within a year. The fact that Almeciga fully performed her part of the agreement (by giving the interview) is irrelevant, as the statute requires that the entire contract, including the defendant's performance, must be capable of completion within a year. Furthermore, Almeciga's fraud and fraudulent concealment claims fail because they are duplicative of the barred breach of contract claim; a plaintiff cannot avoid the Statute of Frauds by re-characterizing a contract claim as a tort claim simply by alleging the defendant never intended to perform. Similarly, the unjust enrichment claim is also barred, as it represents an impermissible 'end-run around the statute of frauds.'
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a strict application of the Statute of Frauds to oral agreements imposing indefinite or perpetual obligations, clarifying that partial performance by one party does not save the contract. The opinion serves as a strong barrier against attempts to repackage barred contract claims as tort or quasi-contract claims, preventing plaintiffs from circumventing the statute's writing requirement. Critically, the court's extensive analysis and ultimate rejection of forensic handwriting analysis as unreliable science under Daubert and Kumho Tire provides significant persuasive authority for future challenges to this type of expert testimony, questioning its foundational validity in federal court.
Unlock the full brief for Almeciga v. Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc.