By Holt Hackney
A federal judge from the District of Arizona dismissed, without leave to amend, the defamation claims brought by the wife and daughter of former Arizona Cardinals executive Terence McDonough.
Specifically, the court held that the plaintiffs exceeded the scope of leave to amend the First Amended Complaint (FAC), when they introduced a new legal theory — false light invasion of privacy.
Terence McDonough served as the vice president of player personnel for the Arizona Cardinals from 2013 to 2024. In April 2023, McDonough filed a confidential arbitration petition before NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, asserting claims for breach of contract and retaliation against the Cardinals and team owner Michael Bidwill. Shortly thereafter, a public relations firm retained by the Cardinals’ law firm issued a public statement responding to McDonough’s allegations. That statement characterized McDonough’s claims as “wildly false, reckless, and an opportunistic ploy for financial gain” and referenced alleged issues in McDonough’s personal life, including purported “disturbing allegations of extreme domestic violence” and claims that he had abandoned one of his children financially.
Following publication of the statement, McDonough amended his arbitration petition to add claims for defamation and invasion of privacy. In March 2024, the arbitrator ruled in favor of McDonough on the defamation claim, finding by clear and convincing evidence that the Cardinals had defamed him by falsely accusing him of domestic violence and abandoning his daughter. McDonough was awarded $3 million in damages, although he did not prevail on his original contract and retaliation claims.
In April 2024, McDonough, along with his wife Lynette and daughter Caroline, filed a civil action in Arizona state court against six defendants: the Cardinals, Bidwill, and four public relations–related defendants, including Counterpoint Strategies, its CEO James McCarthy, attorney Donald Peder Johnsen, and the law firm Gallagher & Kennedy. The defendants removed the case to federal court.
In the FAC, McDonough asserted claims against the public relations defendants for defamation, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Lynette and Caroline (Family Plaintiffs) asserted the same claims against all defendants. The defendants moved to compel arbitration as to McDonough and to dismiss the Family Plaintiffs’ claims for failure to state a claim.
In a February 13, 2025 order, the court granted both motions. McDonough’s claims were stayed pending arbitration. As to the Family Plaintiffs, the court dismissed all claims but sua sponte granted limited leave to amend, expressly authorizing amendments only to attempt to cure the deficiencies identified in the dismissal order.
The court’s February 13 order explained that the Family Plaintiffs’ defamation claims failed because the challenged public statement portrayed Lynette and Caroline as victims of McDonough’s alleged conduct rather than as wrongdoers. Citing authority from multiple jurisdictions, the court held that identifying someone as the victim of a crime is not defamatory. The court further dismissed the negligence claims for lack of a cognizable duty and rejected the IIED claims because the alleged conduct was not “extreme and outrageous” as applied to the Family Plaintiffs and because the complaint failed to adequately plead severe emotional distress.
The Family Plaintiffs then filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC). The SAC contained no new factual allegations, but added a new cause of action for false light invasion of privacy. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the new claim exceeded the scope of leave to amend.
The district court agreed. In granting the motion to dismiss, the court emphasized that its February 13 order granted leave to amend only to plead new facts addressing the deficiencies in the previously dismissed claims. It did not authorize the addition of new causes of action. By introducing a false light claim based entirely on the same facts previously alleged, the Family Plaintiffs exceeded the scope of permissible amendment.
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that Rule 15’s policy of liberal amendment entitled them to assert a new legal theory at this stage. It explained that leave to amend may be limited by court order and that courts routinely strike new claims that fall outside the scope of authorized amendment. The court also noted that the Family Plaintiffs had multiple earlier opportunities to assert a false light claim but failed to do so, despite being aware of the relevant facts.
The court further declined to construe the SAC or the plaintiffs’ briefing as a proper motion for leave to amend. Even if such a request had been made, the court held it would be denied due to undue delay, prejudice to the defendants, and the absence of newly discovered facts. The litigation had been pending for nearly a year, the complaint had already been amended once, and the defendants had expended substantial resources briefing multiple motions to dismiss.
Because the SAC exceeded the scope of leave to amend, the court found it unnecessary to address the substantive viability of the false light claim. The Family Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed in their entirety, without leave to amend.
The decision underscores federal courts’ discretion to strictly enforce limits on leave to amend and reinforces the principle that plaintiffs may not use amendment as a vehicle to introduce new legal theories after repeated pleading failures, particularly when those theories could have been raised earlier in the litigation.
McDonough v. Arizona Cardinals Football Club, LLC; D. Az.; 8/21/25
