A federal court in California recently declined to wade into the merits of a different scientific
controversy in response to a defamation claim against the nonprofit Greenpeace, International. The
court dismissed the defamation claims, holding that “[t]he academy, and not the courthouse, is the
appropriate place to resolve scientific disagreements of this kind.” Resolute Forest Prods., Inc. v.
Greenpeace Int’l, 302 F. Supp. 3d 1005, 1021 (N.D. Cal. 2017). The Greenpeace court continued by
quoting from a Judge Easterbrook opinion: “scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of
science rather than by the methods of litigation.” Id. (quoting Underwager v. Salter, 22 F.3d 730 (7th
Cir. 1994)). The Greenpeace court concluded that, “[f]or that reason, courts have a justifiable
reticence about venturing into the thicket of scientific debate, especially in the defamation context.”
Case 2:21-cv-02355-KJM-DMC Document 7-1 Filed 01/24/22 Page 7 of 25

DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MACMARTIN’s MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO STRIKE
Id. (quoting Arthur v. Offit, No. 01:09-cv-1398, 2010 WL 883745, at *6 (E.D. Va. Mar. 10, 2010)).
The Complaint is dismissible for a host of reasons. The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over
MacMartin, who is a permanent resident of New York and lacks the exceptional contacts with
California necessary to warrant the exercise of general personal jurisdiction over a non-California
domiciliary. Nor can the Court exercise specific personal jurisdiction over MacMartin since he has
not “expressly aimed” his allegedly tortious conduct at California. The fact that the Plaintiff is a
California resident is simply not enough under California law.
Plaintiff’s claims should also be dismissed because Plaintiff has failed to plead actionable
defamation. The two statements at issue here are clearly statements of constitutionally-protected
opinion based on MacMartin’s knowledge of the field of geoengineering. The statements are listed
under the heading “feedback,” and are replete with language that makes clear that MacMartin is
expressing his opinion. Further, Plaintiff has failed to plead actual malice, which is a requirement
because Plaintiff is a limited purpose public figure. Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that MacMartin
provided his feedback with knowledge of (or reckless disregard as to) its alleged falsity. Plaintiff’s
interference claims are similarly insufficiently pled and should be dismissed.
Lastly, Plaintiff’s lawsuit is a classic SLAPP lawsuit, and for the reasons stated herein,
Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike should be granted.

https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2022/20220124_docket-221-cv-02355_motion-to-dismiss.pdf