Pittman v. Pittman

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION - For the reasons explained above, the court WILL GRANT Ms. Pittman's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and WILL DISMISS this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Because the court will dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, the court WILL DENY as MOOT Ms. Pittman's motion to dismiss for improper venue and motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Signed by Judge Annemarie Carney Axon on 3/31/2021. (KEK)

FILED
2021 Mar-31 AM 10:02
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

RANDY DEWAYNE PITTMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMBER BAILEY PITTMAN,
Defendant.

}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

Case No.: 2:20-cv-01599-ACA

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case arises out of allegations that Defendant Amber Bailey Pittman
made against Plaintiff Randy Dewayne Pittman in a petition for suspension of
visitation filed in Georgia state court. Mr. Pittman filed suit against Ms. Pittman,
claiming that the petition contains defamatory, libelous, and slanderous statements.
(Docs. 1, 6).
Before the court is Ms. Pittman’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction and venue (doc. 11) and motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
(doc. 13).
Despite being given an opportunity to establish that the court has personal
jurisdiction over Ms. Pittman (see doc. 12), Mr. Pittman did not respond to Ms.
Pittman’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Having reviewed the

record and Ms. Pittman’s arguments, the court finds that Ms. Pittman has not
purposefully availed herself to suit in this court, and therefore, the court does not
have personal jurisdiction over Ms. Pittman.

Accordingly, the court WILL

GRANT the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and WILL
DISMISS this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Because the court will dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, the
court need not consider the motion to dismiss for improper venue or the motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim. Therefore, the court WILL DENY those
motions as MOOT.
I.

BACKGROUND
In deciding a Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal

jurisdiction, the court must accept as true the factual allegations made in the
complaint unless the defendant contradicts those allegations with evidence. Posner
v. Essex Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 1209, 1215 (11th Cir. 1999).
Mr. and Ms. Pittman were married in 2010. (Doc. 14-1 at 1). They lived in
Alabama for a time and moved from Alabama to Georgia in 2011. (Id.). Mr. and
Ms. Pittman were divorced in April 2018 when the Fayette County Superior Court
of Georgia entered a final judgment of divorce. (Id.). Mr. Pittman then moved
back to Alabama. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 1; Doc. 6 at ¶ 5). Ms. Pittman still resides in
Georgia. (Doc. 6 at ¶ 6; Doc. 14-1 at 1).
2

In September 2020, Ms. Pittman filed a petition in the Fayette County
Superior Court of Georgia asking the court to suspend Mr. Pittman’s visitation
with their minor child. (Doc. 14-2). Mr. Pittman then filed this lawsuit, alleging
that Ms. Pittman published disparaging comments against him in the September
2020 petition. (Docs. 1, 6). Mr. Pittman asserts state law claims for defamation,
libel, and slander against Ms. Pittman. (Id.).
II.

DISCUSSION
Ms. Pittman moves to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Doc. 11). She also moves to
dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) for improper
venue and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim. (Id.; see also doc. 13). Because the court concludes that Mr. Pittman has
not established that the court has personal jurisdiction over Ms. Pittman, the court
will not address any arguments about venue or the merits of the claims.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), the court may dismiss a
complaint for “lack of personal jurisdiction.”

To withstand a Rule 12(b)(2)

motion, the plaintiff “bears the initial burden of alleging in the complaint sufficient
facts to make out a prima facie case of jurisdiction.” United Techs. Corp. v.
Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260, 1274 (11th Cir. 2009). Where the defendant challenges
personal jurisdiction and submits affidavits in support of its position, the burden
3

shifts back to the plaintiff to produce evidence supporting jurisdiction. Meier ex
rel. Meier v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 288 F.3d 1264, 1269 (11th Cir. 2002).
“A federal court sitting in diversity may exercise personal jurisdiction [over
a nonresident defendant] to the extent authorized by the law of the state in which it
sits and to the extent allowed under the Constitution.” Id. Here, the two inquiries
overlap because “Alabama’s long-arm statute permits service of process to the
fullest extent constitutionally permissible.” Sloss Indus. Corp. v. Eurison, 488
F.3d 922, 925 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Ala. R. Civ. P. 4.2(b)).
The Due Process Clause permits two kinds of personal jurisdiction: general
and specific. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco
Cty., 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1779–80 (2017). General jurisdiction exists where a foreign
defendant’s “affiliations with the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to
render [her] essentially at home in the forum State.” Goodyear Dunlop Tires
Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011) (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v.
Washington, 326 U.S. 317 (1945)). Mr. Pittman’s complaint alleges no facts
demonstrating that Ms. Pittman has continuous and systematic affiliations with
Alabama sufficient to subject her to general jurisdiction. And the undisputed
evidence is that Ms. Pittman has not had any contact with Alabama since she
moved from the state from 2011. (Doc. 14-1 at 1–2). Accordingly, the court may
not exercise general jurisdiction over Ms. Pittman.
4

The court also may not exercise specific jurisdiction over Ms. Pittman.
Under the concept of specific jurisdiction, a court may hear only claims that
“aris[e] out of or relate[ ] to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” Daimler AG
v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 127 (2014) (quotation marks omitted). To determine
whether specific jurisdiction exists, the court considers whether: (1) “the plaintiff’s
claims arise out of or relate to at least one of the defendant’s contacts with the
forum;” (2) “the nonresident defendant purposefully availed h[er]self of the
privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefit
of the forum state’s laws;” and (3) “the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports
with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”

Louis Vuitton

Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339, 1355 (11th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks
omitted). “The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the first two prongs,” and
if he does so, then the defendant “‘must make a ‘compelling case’ that the exercise
of jurisdiction would violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.’” Id. (quoting Diamond Crystal Brands, Inc. v. Food Movers Int’l, Inc.,
593 F.3d 1249, 1267 (11th Cir. 2010)).
With respect to the first prong, the court examines the “‘affiliation between
the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an
occurrence that [took] place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the
State’s regulation.’” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. 137 S. Ct. at 1780 (2017) (quoting
5

Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919). In other words, the court’s “‘inquiry must focus on
the direct causal relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.’”
Fraser v. Smith, 594 F.3d 842, 850 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotations omitted).
Importantly, a “plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the
forum.” Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014). Instead, “it is the defendant’s
conduct that must form the necessary connection with the forum State that is the
basis for its jurisdiction over h[er].” Id.
The second prong requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant
“‘purposefully availed’ itself of the privilege of conducting activities—that is,
purposefully establishing contacts—in the forum state. . . .” Diamond Crystal
Brands, 593 F.3d at 1267.

A plaintiff may establish purposeful availment if the

facts show that the defendant “deliberately engaged in significant activities within
[the forum state] or created continuing obligations with residents of that forum.”
Id. at 1268.
Here, Ms. Pittman has no contacts—purposeful or otherwise—with the State
of Alabama. She has lived in Georgia since 2011. (Doc. 14-1 at 1). The allegedly
disparaging remarks she made about Mr. Pittman are part of court pleadings she
filed in a Georgia state court. (Id. at 1–2; Doc. 14-2). All of the conduct giving
rise to Mr. Pittman’s claims took place in Georgia. And the claims have no
connection to Alabama other that the fact that Mr. Pittman resides here, which is
6

insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Ms. Pittman. Accordingly, Mr.
Pittman has not met his burden of establishing that his claims arise out of Ms.
Pittman’s contacts with Alabama or that Ms. Pittman purposefully availed herself
to the benefit of this state’s laws by conducting any activity in Alabama.
Because Mr. Pittman has not satisfied the first and second prongs of the
three-party inquiry, the court finds that it does not have specific jurisdiction over
Ms. Pittman.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, the court WILL GRANT Ms. Pittman’s

motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and WILL
DISMISS this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Because the court will dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, the
court WILL DENY as MOOT Ms. Pittman’s motion to dismiss for improper
venue and motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
DONE and ORDERED this March 31, 2021.

_________________________________
ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7

8