Michael Mogan v. Portfolio Media , Inc .

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 24-1331
MICHAEL MOGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
P ORTFOLIO MEDIA , INC .,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 1:23-cv-02868 — Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge.
____________________
A RGUED OCTOBER 22, 2024 — D ECIDED J ULY 14, 2025
____________________
Before BRENNAN, J ACKSON-A KIWUMI, and K OLAR , Circuit
Judges.
P ER C URIAM. Michael Mogan appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his suit against Portfolio Media, the owner of
Law360, for defamation and false light. Because Mogan fails
to show that any statement by Law360 falls outside the fair
report privilege, we affirm the district court.

-- 1 of 5 --

2 No. 24-1331
Mogan, who is an attorney, sued Airbnb in California state
court on behalf of a client named Veronica McCluskey in 2018.
See Mogan v. Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP, No. 21-cv-08431, 2022
WL 94927, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2022) (describing the
McCluskey case). After that case went to arbitration, Mogan
sued Airbnb on his own behalf, also in California state court,
for abuse of process and unfair business practices that he al-
leged Airbnb committed in the McCluskey case. The state
court dismissed the case and imposed sanctions against
Mogan for filing a frivolous lawsuit. When he refused to pay
the sanctions, the California State Bar filed disciplinary
charges against him. Law360, a legal news website, detailed
these legal battles in three articles published between 2022
and 2023.
That brings us to the present case. Displeased with the
news coverage, Mogan sued Portfolio Media, the owner of
Law360, for defamation and false light in federal district
court. After Portfolio filed a motion to dismiss, Mogan moved
to amend his complaint to add statements from the first 2022
article. Portfolio opposed the motion to amend, arguing the
case should be dismissed because Law360’s coverage was
protected by the fair report privilege, and as such, amend-
ment of Mogan’s complaint was futile.
The district court agreed with Portfolio. It dismissed the
complaint for failure to state a claim and denied leave to
amend as futile. As the court correctly explained, under Illi-
nois law, statements of official proceedings that are “complete
and accurate or a fair abridgement” are protected by the fair
report privilege and thus cannot support a defamation or
false light claim. Solaia Tech., LLC v. Specialty Publ’g. Co., 221
Ill. 2d 558, 588 (2006). The court concluded that Mogan failed

-- 2 of 5 --

No. 24-1331 3
to explain how the articles were not a fair abridgment of state-
ments from official proceedings:
[Mogan] has not explained whether and how he
contends the Law360 articles misrepresented
the official proceedings that are the subjects of
those articles. In other words, Mogan has not
identified any inconsistencies between the facts
as described by Law360 and the facts as de-
scribed by the court decisions at issue. The
availability of the fair report privilege turns on
whether the statements accurately recount judi-
cial proceedings, not on the underlying truth of
any facts found by the courts in those proceed-
ings.
Mogan now appeals the dismissal of his suit. Our review
is de novo. Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720, 727 (7th
Cir. 2014). A statement covered by the fair report privilege
cannot form the basis of a defamation or false light claim. See
Solaia, 221 Ill. 2d at 580, 588 (explaining the privilege defeats
defamation claims); see also Sullivan v. Conway, 157 F.3d 1092,
1098–99 (7th Cir. 1998) (same for false light claims). So, we
consider whether Mogan shows that any statement is not a
fair abridgement of official proceedings; if he does, the fair re-
port privilege does not apply. See Solaia, 221 Ill. 2d at 580, 588.
Mogan challenges thirteen statements from the three articles.
Because many of the statements appear in more than one ar-
ticle and Mogan’s arguments apply to multiple statements,
we group his challenges into three buckets for our discussion.
First, Mogan argues that Law360’s coverage “falsely
stated” that he was facing sanctions for a baseless and frivo-
lous lawsuit. But that description accurately reflects the

-- 3 of 5 --

4 No. 24-1331
sanctions order, which described Mogan’s suit as “baseless,”
and quoted a prior court order “admonish[ing] Mogan per-
sonally for his ‘baseless and unprofessional’ accusations.” He
also takes issue with Law360 reporting on a court hearing in-
stead of waiting for a final court order. But the fair report priv-
ilege applies equally to court hearings. See Restatement (Sec-
ond) of Torts § 611, cmt. d (“[T]he privilege includes the re-
port of any official hearing or meeting, even though no other
action is taken.”).
Mogan next argues that Law360 gave an erroneous im-
pression to readers by not covering certain information, in-
cluding his allegations that Airbnb lied to the court and the
California State Bar discriminated against him. But his argu-
ment—effectively that Law360 should have provided addi-
tional background—does not address how Law360’s state-
ments inaccurately summarized the court proceedings it
chose to cover. See Solaia, 221 Ill. 2d at 585 (explaining the
privilege turns on whether the challenged statement accu-
rately summarizes statements of official proceedings).
Finally, Mogan points out that Law360 inaccurately de-
scribed his legal theory. But the inaccuracy—that Law360 said
he requested the sanctions be lifted instead of declared inva-
lid—carries the same “gist or sting of the alleged defamation”
and so is still protected by the fair report privilege. Harrison
v. Chi. Sun-Times, Inc., 341 Ill. App. 3d 555, 572 (2003). We find
none of Mogan’s arguments persuasive and conclude he does
not show that any statement was an inaccurate abridgement
of statements from official proceedings.
Our review of the thirteen statements confirms that each
is protected by the fair report privilege as each conveys a
“substantially correct account” of the court proceedings it

-- 4 of 5 --

No. 24-1331 5
covers. Solaia, 221 Ill. 2d at 590. Because Mogan’s complaint
and proposed second amended complaint exclusively chal-
lenge statements covered by the fair report privilege, we
agree with the district court that Mogan has failed to state a
claim and amendment is futile.
AFFIRMED.

-- 5 of 5 --