CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA and Founding Church of Scientology of
                         Washington, D. C., Plaintiffs,
                                       v.
    James SIEGELMAN, Flo Conway, J. B. Lippincott Company and Morris Deutsch,
                                   Defendants.
                             No. 79 Civ. 1166(GLG).
                  United States District Court, S. D. New York.
                                 Dec. 19, 1979.
  Two branches of religious organization existing inside and outside United
 States brought libel action against, among others, former member.  Former
 member filed motion to reargue many of issues previously decided in prior
 opinion, 475 F.Supp. 950.  The District Court, Goettel, J., held that: (1)
 it could not be said, as matter of law, that plaintiffs would not be able to
 prove that alleged defamatory language related to limited group of
 organization's churches existing in United States, and thus show that alleged
 defamation related to these plaintiffs, so as to make out a cause of action for
 libel, and (2) former member's counterclaims brought under federal statute
 prohibiting conspiracy to deprive persons of their constitutional rights had to
 be dismissed.
  Motion to reargue denied.

 [1] LIBEL AND SLANDER
 In order to make out a cause of action for libel a plaintiff must establish
 that alleged defamatory remark was directed at some specific individual or
 group and not merely at an "indeterminate class."--

 [2] LIBEL AND SLANDER
 In libel action brought against former member by two branches of religious
 organization existing in and outside United States, allegations in complaint,
 concerning whether allegedly defamatory language related to limited group
 consisting of organization's churches existing in United States, were
 sufficient to state a cause of action for libel.

 [3] CONSPIRACY
 In libel action brought by two branches of religious organization against
 former member, court, having been presented with no compelling reason why its
 previous result should be modified or reversed, reaffirmed its conclusion that
 overbroad class, which had been characterized as consisting of members, former
 members, and persons disseminating information about organization, but which in
 essence was made up of persons who were critics of organization, was not formed
 on basis of any invidious criteria, and thus former member's counterclaims
 brought under federal statute governing conspiracy to deprive persons of their
 constitutional rights had to be dismissed.  42 U.S.C.A. s 1985(3).
  *866 Cohn, Glickstein, Lurie, Ostrin & Lubell, New York City, for
 plaintiffs by Jonathan W. Lubell, Audrey J. Isaacs, New York City, of counsel.
  Rosner & Rosner, New York City, for defendant, Deutsch by Jonathan L. Rosner,
 New York City, of counsel.
                                     OPINION

  GOETTEL, District Judge:
  In this libel action brought by two branches of the Church of Scientology,
 defendant Morris Deutsch has moved to reargue many of the issues decided by the
 Court in its opinion of August 27, 1979.  Church of Scientology of
 California v. Siegelman, 475 F.Supp. 950 (S.D.N.Y.1979).
  The facts of this action are set forth in detail in the August 27th decision.
 Defendant Deutsch now asserts that the Court erred in failing to dismiss the
 action as against him.  In essence he argues that because the statements
 allegedly made by him were directed at the Scientology movement in general, and
 not at either of the instant plaintiffs, neither of these plaintiffs was
 defamed or, consequently, damaged.
  *867 [1] In order to make out a cause of action for libel a plaintiff
 must establish that the alleged defamatory remark was directed at some specific
 individual or group and not merely at an "indeterminate class."  Gross v.
 Cantor, 270 N.Y. 93, 96, 200 N.E. 592, 593 (1936); Schutzman & Schutzman v.
 News Syndicate Co., 60 Misc.2d 827, 304 N.Y.S.2d 167 (Sup.Ct.1969).  Where the
 defamatory remark is found to be directed at a "small" group as a whole,
 however, it has been held that suit may be brought by any member of that
 group.  Neiman-Marcus v. Lait, 13 F.R.D. 311, 315 (S.D.N.Y.1952).  See
 Arcand v. Evening Call Publishing Co., 567 F.2d 1163, 1164-65 (1st Cir.
 1977).
  The defendant asserts that the alleged defamatory remarks refer to the
 overall, worldwide Scientology movement, of which there are more than five
 million members (over three million members in the United States) and numerous
 organizational instrumentalities.  Accordingly, as the group allegedly defamed
 is extremely large, the defendant claims that no individual within that group
 can sue absent proof that that individual was a specific target of the
 defamatory language.  See Neiman-Marcus v. Lait, supra.
  Conversely, the plaintiff asserts that the alleged defamatory language relates
 to the very limited group of Churches of Scientology in the United States.  As
 there are only twenty-two such churches within that group, the plaintiffs claim
 that all members of the group can sue.  See Gross v. Cantor, supra.
  [2] Where the truth lies in this matter is somewhat unclear.  The Court
 believes, after having closely examined the alleged defamatory language in the
 complaint, that the plaintiff will have difficulty proving that the language
 relates to the limited group of Churches of Scientology.  Nevertheless, we
 cannot say at this time, as a matter of law, that they will not be able to do
 so, and thus show that the alleged defamation related to these plaintiffs.
 See Fetler v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 364 F.2d 650 (2d Cir. 1966).  See also
 Bindrim v. Mitchell, 92 Cal.App.3d 61, 155 Cal.Rptr. 29 (1979), Cert.
 denied, --- U.S. ----, 100 S.Ct. 490, 62 L.Ed.2d 412 (1979).
 Accordingly, the defendant's motion to reargue as to this point is denied.
  In its August 27th opinion the Court expressed its doubts as to the ability of
 the plaintiffs to prove the existence of the "actual malice" on the part of the
 defendant that is necessary in order to establish his liability.  Church of
 Scientology of California v. Siegelman, supra, 475 F.Supp. at 955.  The Court
 has now expressed its doubts as to the ability of the plaintiffs to demonstrate
 that the alleged defamatory remarks made were directed at them rather than at
 some far larger group.  Nevertheless, as to both issues discovery has not as
 yet been completed,[FN1] and the Court believes it would be premature to reach
 any final determination on these issues.  However, in view of the importance of
 preventing potentially frivolous suits where first amendment rights are
 concerned, and in view of the continuing appropriateness of summary judgment
 (though apparently limited by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Hutchinson
 v. Proximire, --- U.S. ----, 99 S.Ct. 2675, 2680 n. 9, 61 L.Ed.2d 411
 (1979)) as a means through which to resolve many such cases, See Nader v. De
 Toledano, --- U.S.App.D.C. ---, --- F.2d ---- (D.C. Cir., July 31, 1979),
 the Court makes its determination as to the instant motion, as it did as to the
 defendant's previous motion, without prejudice to renewal upon completion of
 discovery. [FN2]

      FN1. Discovery in this action has, it appears, been proceeding at a less
     than rapid pace, with frequent disputes arising between the parties.

      FN2. In this regard the Court reaffirms its statement in Church of
     Scientology of California v. Siegelman, supra, 475 F.Supp. at 956 n. 16,
     that "should it be ultimately determined that this suit was brought without
     cause, or for the purpose of harassment, the Court will not hesitate to
     order the imposition of counsel fees upon the plaintiff.  See Nemeroff
     v. Abelson, 469 F.Supp. 630 (S.D.N.Y.1979)."

  [3] Finally, the defendant has asserted that the Court also erred in
 dismissing his *868 counterclaims that alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. s
 1985(3).  In this regard, and contrary to the defendant's assertions, the Court
 has previously considered and rejected as insufficient for section 1985
 purposes, the overbroad class, which has been characterized as consisting of
 members, former members, and persons disseminating information about, the
 Church of Scientology, but which in essence is made up of persons who are
 critics of the Church.  Church of Scientology of California v. Siegelman,
 supra, 475 F.Supp. at 957 n. 19.  Having been presented with no compelling
 reason why this result should be modified or reversed, the Court reaffirms its
 conclusion that this "vague and amorphous class was not formed on the basis of
 any invidious criteria," Id., 475 F.Supp. 957 and, accordingly, that the
 defendant's counterclaims brought under section 1985 must be dismissed.
  The defendant Deutsch's motion for reargument is, at this time, denied in all
 respects.
  SO ORDERED.