Harrison v. Facebook, Inc.

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION AND ORDER. It is ORDERED that: 29 Plaintiff's Objections are OVERRULED, 28 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 21 Motion to Dismiss is ADOPTED, and 21 Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set out. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Terry F. Moorer on 03/08/2019. (srd) Copy to Plaintiff.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
TAMI HARRISON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,
Defendant.

CIV. ACT. NO. 1:18-cv-147-TFM-MU

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On January 17, 2019, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (Doc.
28) which recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21) be granted. Plaintiff Tami
Harrison (“Harrison” or “Plaintiff”) timely filed objections (Doc. 29) to which Defendant
Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook” or “Defendant”) filed its response (Doc. 30).
After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues
raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection
is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 28) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of this Court.
I.

BACKGROUND

On June 15, 2018, Facebook filed its Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)
and 12(b)(6). See Docs. 21-22. Alternatively, Facebook moved for a transfer to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California. Id. Plaintiff timely responded in opposition
to the motion to dismiss. See Doc. 24. Facebook timely replied to Plaintiff’s opposition. See Doc.
25.
On January 17, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation

Page 1 of 3

(“R&R”) wherein he addresses the Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). In the R&R,
the Magistrate Judge concludes that the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Facebook
and recommends Facebook’s motion to dismiss be granted and Plaintiff’s action dismissed without
prejudice. The R&R does not address the Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or the
alternative request to transfer to the Northern District of California.
Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R was filed on January 29, 2019. See Doc. 29. In the
objection, Harrison objects to dismissal but states she “moves the Court to transfer this case to
avoid dismissal to the preferred venue and authority of Judge if venue is improper here at stated in
reports and recommendations.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff further states she “would like a transfer issued if
the new venue doesn’t have a level of congestion of the respective courts, dockets and the speed
with which the dispute can be resolved in an efficient and cost effective manner.” Id. Defendant
filed its response to Plaintiff’s objection, now argues against transfer, and urges the Court to reject
Plaintiff’s request for transfer.
II.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The Court notes that had Plaintiff consented to transfer in response to the Motion to
Dismiss, it may have been more well-received. But, Plaintiff only consented to transfer after the
R&R was filed with its finding that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction. Ultimately, the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis is accurate and to the point. While the Court ultimately could dismiss
or transfer with regard to the personal jurisdiction, the Court finds no basis to overrule the wellreasoned analysis of the Magistrate Judge under either a de novo or clearly erroneous standard.
Further, transfer would still leave the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss pending for the California
court’s determination. As such, the Court declines to transfer the case.
The Court notes that this dismissal is without prejudice and Plaintiff may refile her lawsuit

Page 2 of 3

in the Northern District of California should she choose to do so. The Northern District of
California provides ample resources for pro se plaintiffs to review before filing suit in their court.
See https://cand.uscourts.gov/Legal-Help-Center-Templates. Should Plaintiff choose to refile in
California, the Court would urge her to seek legal counsel and/or review the website above.
III.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons articulated above, it is ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 29) are OVERRULED;
(2) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28) is ADOPTED;
(3) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part;
a. The Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21) is GRANTED as to the request for dismissal
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).
b. The Motion to Dismiss (Doc 21) and Alternative Request for Transfer (Doc.
21) are DENIED as moot.
(4) This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Final judgment shall issue separately in accordance with this order and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 58.
DONE and ORDERED this the 8th day of March 2019.
/s/Terry F. Moorer
TERRY F. MOORER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3