WASHINGTON _ A federal judge in Virginia dismissed Rep. Devin Nunes' lawsuit against the investigative research firm behind the so-called Steele dossier, citing shortcomings in the California Republican's legal complaint.
Judge Liam O'Grady on Friday granted motions to dismiss the case filed by the research firm Fusion GPS and a co-defendant, the advocacy group Campaign for Accountability. Politico first reported on the lawsuit's dismissal.
O'Grady dismissed Nunes' lawsuit without hearing oral arguments, writing that a hearing in his court "would not aid in the decisional process."
Nunes' complaint "includes many rote statements of law and conclusory allegations which fall short of meeting" legal standards determined by the Supreme Court," O'Grady wrote.
The case is the first of the six lawsuits Nunes filed in 2019 to be dismissed by a judge. Nunes' campaign dropped one lawsuit filed against a retired San Joaquin Valley farmer who contested Nunes' description of himself on election ballots as a farmer.
The other four lawsuits _ against Twitter, news organizations, journalists and anonymous writers who criticize him on social media _ remain active. Nunes in the cases alleges media companies and his political adversaries conspired to damage his reputation.
McClatchy, the parent company of The Fresno Bee, is among the three news organizations Nunes is suing. McClatchy has called the lawsuit "a baseless attack on local journalism and a free press," and moved to dismiss the case.
Nunes in September filed the lawsuit alleging Fusion GPS and Campaign for Accountability engaged in a "joint and systematic effort to intimidate, harass, threaten, influence, interfere with, impede, and ultimately to derail" his work as House Intelligence Committee chairman. Nunes used that position to investigate the origins of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into foreign interference with the 2016 election.
Fusion GPS was the investigative research firm that worked for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, and that created the Steele dossier. The information in the dossier included unproven tips collected by a former British intelligence officer about President Donald Trump's alleged connections to Russia.
Nunes has characterized the dossier and subsequent investigations by the FBI and Mueller as an effort to undermine Trump's presidency.
Separately, Campaign for Accountability had filed ethics complaints against Nunes during the last election cycle.
Daniel Stevens, Campaign for Accountability's executive director, said "we applaud the court's decision to dismiss this frivolous lawsuit. The allegations in the complaint were obviously absurd and did not warrant any consideration."
"Moreover, attempts by Nunes to stifle critics through well-funded lawsuits is an affront to the First Amendment. Nunes should not be allowed to abuse his power to force critics to stand silent in the face of his misconduct. We are gratified that the court put an end to this nonsense," Stevens said in a written statement.
In dismissing the case, O'Grady cited a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court case, Bell Atlantic Corp. vs. Twombly, that a held a plaintiff must put forward "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face" for a lawsuit alleging a conspiracy to move forward. The court in the Bell Atlantic case dismissed a lawsuit alleging that regional telephone companies conspired to harm customers by not competing against each other.
O'Grady, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, wrote that Nunes had 30 days to file an amended complaint that could meet the required legal standard.
