## Facts

- Garcia, a former employee of Hilton Hotels International, Inc. (Hilton), sued Hilton for defamation based on statements Hilton allegedly made about him.
- In paragraph 4 of the complaint, Garcia alleged Hilton “violently discharged” him while falsely accusing him of bringing prostitution to a Hilton hotel by bringing outside women into hotel rooms.
- Garcia then filed an administrative claim with Puerto Rico’s labor department seeking severance pay.
- In paragraphs 5–8 of the complaint, Garcia alleged that during the severance-pay proceeding and hearing, Hilton repeated the accusation that Garcia had brought prostitution to the hotel.
- Hilton moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the discharge-related statement was not actionable because the complaint did not allege publication to a third person.
- Hilton also argued it had a qualified privilege regarding the discharge-related statement and an absolute privilege for statements made in the labor-department proceeding.
- In the alternative, Hilton moved to strike paragraphs 5–8 (and related allegations) and requested a more definite statement of the defamation claim.

## Issues

1. Whether Garcia’s complaint stated a defamation claim based on the alleged accusation made at the time of discharge, despite not expressly pleading publication to a third party.
2. Whether the allegations based on statements made in the Puerto Rico labor-department severance-pay proceeding were absolutely privileged and therefore subject to being stricken.
3. Whether the court should require Garcia to provide a more definite statement of the discharge-related defamation allegations so Hilton could reasonably frame a response.

## Decision

- The court denied Hilton’s motion to dismiss the discharge-based defamation claim, concluding that dismissal was not warranted at the pleading stage under the federal rules.
- The court granted Hilton’s motion to strike paragraphs 5–8 (the allegations tied to the labor-department proceeding) because statements made in that official proceeding were absolutely privileged under Puerto Rico law.
- The court granted Hilton’s request for a more definite statement regarding the discharge-based allegations to clarify the circumstances of the alleged slander, including facts bearing on publication.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint is tested on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion by whether it provides fair notice of the claim and the grounds on which it rests, not by technical common-law pleading demands.
- Defamation generally requires publication to someone other than the plaintiff, but when the pleading is unclear or incomplete on details necessary to respond, the proper remedy may be a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) rather than dismissal.
- A qualified privilege (such as an employer’s interest in explaining a discharge) is typically an affirmative defense and ordinarily does not justify dismissal unless the defense is established on the face of the complaint.
- Puerto Rico law provides an absolute privilege for defamatory statements made in the course of certain official proceedings; allegations resting solely on such statements are legally insufficient and may be stricken under Rule 12(f).
- Rule 12(f) permits the court to strike from a pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.

## Conclusion

Garcia’s complaint was allowed to proceed as to the alleged slander made when Hilton discharged him, but the court removed the portions of the pleading based on statements made during the Puerto Rico labor-department severance proceeding because those statements were absolutely privileged, and it required Garcia to supply a more definite statement to clarify the discharge-related defamation allegations.


Garcia v. Hilton Hotels International, Inc., 97 F.Supp. 5 (1951)