PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
A NEW YORK LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP Marvin M. Goldstein, Managing
Resident Partner

One Newark Center Newark, NJ 07102-5211 Telephone 973.274.3200 or
212.736.8185 Fax 973.274.3299
BOCA BATON BOSTON LONDON
LOS ANGELES NEW ORLEANS NEW YORK PARIS
SAO PAULO WASHINGTON
Jeremy M. Brown Senior Counsel

Direct Dial 973.274.3205
November 19, 2007
By Facsimile (with permission) and Regular Mail
The Honorable Denny Chin, U.S.D.J.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York United
States Courthouse

500 Pearl Street, Room 1020

New York, New York 10007
Sloan v. Truong, et al.
Civil Action No.: 07 CV 8537 (DC)
Dear Judge Chin:
This law firm is counsel to defendants The United States Chess
Federation, Hoainhan Truong, Zsuzsanna Polger, Joel Charming, William
Goichberg, Bill Hall, Randall Hough, Randy Bauer and Jim Berry
(collectively "Defendants")1 in the above-referenced matter.
Defendants submit this letter pursuant to Your Honor's Individual
Practice Rule 2A and respectfully request the scheduling of a pre-
motion conference to address an anticipated motion to dismiss
plaintiff Sam Sloan's (pro se) Complaint. Defendants seek permission
to file a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(2) because there is no
basis for subject matter and personal jurisdiction. Specifically,
Plaintiff has failed to: (i) establish complete diversity between the
parties in order to maintain jurisdiction in this Court; (ii)
articulate a federal question sufficient to sustain jurisdiction; and
(iii) personal jurisdiction is improper because Plaintiff cannot
establish sufficient contacts between the Defendants and the :forum
state.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), this Court has original subject matter
jurisdiction over all claims where the action is between "citizens of
a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state." See Caterpillar
Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 67-68 (1996); Gushing v. Moore, 970 F.2d
1103, 1106 (2d Cir. 1992). Both Plaintiff and individual defendant
William Goichberg ("Goichberg) are citizens of the State of New York.
Defendant Goichberg resides in Salisbury Mills, New York.
1 Defendant Herbert Rodney Vaughn was not served with the Complaint
and defendants Gregory Alexander and Grant Perks were served
improperly. While this firm represents Messrs. Vaughn, Alexander and
Perks, they are not appearing in this matter (although the grounds for
dismissal would be identical to the anticipated motion).
2 Defendant Goichberg will submit an affidavit stating that he is a
New York State resident.

PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
The Honorable Denny Chin, U.S.D.J. November 19, 2007 Page 2

Accordingly, the Court does not have diversity jurisdiction over this
action and Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal courts have original jurisdiction over
cases "arising under" federal law. The only federal statute
specifically identified by Plaintiff in his Complaint is the
Communications Decency Act ("CDA"), 47 U.S.C. § 223(h)(1) (Compl. ¶
3.) However, the CDA is a criminal statute, which does not provide
federal jurisdiction over a civil lawsuit for money damages. See Moore
v. New York City Bd. of Educ., No. 01 Civ. 0908 (RWS), 2001 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 9955, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2001). Plaintiff also references
that jurisdiction is based on "election fraud." (Compl. ¶ 2.) Election
fraud is generally prohibited under the Federal Election Campaign Act
("FECA"), 2 U.S.C. § 431, et seq., and the Voting Rights Act ("VRA"),
42 U.S.C. § 1973, et seq. Neither act permits an individual to bring a
civil lawsuit in federal court. Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that
federal jurisdiction is based on "the constitution and laws of the
United States" (Compl. 112). However, this is insufficient to sustain
a Complaint. See Sip fle v. Cortland Country Club, Inc., No. 5:04-
CV-565 (NAM/GHL), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27625, at *2, 5 (N.D.N.Y. Nov.
4, 2005). Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to present a federal
question and this Court should dismiss his Complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

Lastly, there is no personal jurisdiction because Plaintiff cannot
establish sufficient contacts between the Defendants and the forum
state. Plaintiff's allegations that certain defendants posted
allegedly defamatory statements about him on chess web-sites, thereby
preventing him from winning election to the Executive Board of The
U.S. Chess Federation (Compl. ¶n 3-9), are insufficient as a matter of
law to establish personal jurisdiction over any of the defendants in
New York.3 Allegedly defamatory postings on web-sites, which may be
read by individuals in New York, are not sufficient to establish
personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. See Best Van
Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239, 250-51 (2d Cir. 2007) (finding
that posting defamatory material on a web-site accessible in New York
was not sufficient to constitute "transacting business" in New York).
Accordingly, there is no personal jurisdiction over defendants and
this matter should be dismissed.
Respectfully submitted,
3 This argument does not apply to defendant Goichberg, who is a New
York State resident.
Jeremy C.Brown

cc: Sam Sloan (pro se) (via regular mail) Anthony M. Handler, Esq.
(via regular mail) Patrick M. O'Brien, Esq. (via regular mail) Scot M.
Graydon, Esq. (via regular mail)

http://www.samsloan.com/proskauer.pdf