Huon v. Breaking Media et al

Filing 151

MINUTE entry before Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: For the reasons set forth in the statement section of this order, Plaintiff Meanith Huons Second Amended Complaint 22 is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff is granted leave to re-file a Third Amended Complaint on or before 9/12/12, addressing the jurisdictional issues noted in the Statement below. (For further details see minute order)Mailed notice (air, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

John J. Tharp Jr.

CASE NUMBER

11 C 3054

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

8/13/2012

Huon vs. Breaking Media, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons set forth in the statement section of this order, Plaintiff Meanith Huon’s Second Amended
Complaint [22] is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff is granted
leave to re-file a Third Amended Complaint on or before 9/12/12, addressing the jurisdictional issues noted in
the Statement below.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT
Plaintiff Meanith Huon (“Huon”) filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging that original jurisdiction
is proper in this Court because of complete diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Court finds
that Huon’s allegations regarding diversity jurisdiction are insufficient to determine whether the Court can
properly invoke jurisdiction over this lawsuit, and therefore the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed without
prejudice.
Huon’s errors with respect to alleging complete diversity of citizenship are numerous. First, Huon fails
to provide the Court with any basis to determine his own state citizenship. Huon alleges that he “was at all
relevant times a citizen of the United States and a resident of Cook County, Illinois.” (Doc. 22 at 2.) But this
is insufficient to establish that Huon is an Illinois citizen because “residence may or may not demonstrate
citizenship, which depends on domicile.” Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir.
2012). Huon must allege that he is a citizen—not merely a resident—of a particular state, and citizenship turns
on domicile.
Second, the Second Amended Complaint lacks allegations regarding the state citizenship of defendants
Abovethelaw.com, Breakingmedia.com, David Minkin, Breaking Media, Gawker Media a/k/a Gawker.com,
Jezebel.com, Gaby Darbyshire, Lawyergossip.com, and Newnation.org a/k/a Newnation.tv a/k/a New Nation
News. Huon must allege the state citizenship of these defendants if he wishes to invoke diversity jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the citizenship of the remaining defendants (David Lat, Elie Mystal, John Lerner, Nick Denton, and
Irin Carmon) is alleged only “upon information and belief.” The Seventh Circuit has previously stated that
allegations of citizenship “to the best of [plaintiff’s] knowledge and belief” are insufficient. America’s Best Inns,
inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992); but see Medical Assurance Co., Inc. v.
Hellman, 610 F.3d 371, 376 (7th Cir. 2010) (allowing allegations of citizenship on “information and belief”
where record has other indicia of defendants’ citizenship).

11C3054 Huon vs. Breaking Media, et al.

Page 1 of 2

Third, Huon alleges claims against numerous “John Doe” defendants, despite the prohibition of such
claims in federal diversity suits. “[B]ecause the existence of diversity jurisdiction cannot be determined without
knowledge of every defendant’s place of citizenship, ‘John Doe’ defendants are not permitted in federal diversity
suits.” Howell v. Tribune Entm’t Co., 106 F.3d 215, 218 (7th Cir. 1997). The Doe defendants listed in the
Second Amended Complaint do not appear to fall within any exception to the rule against unnamed defendants
in federal diversity suits.
Fourth, Huon purports to sue several domain names of websites in the Second Amended Complaint. The
domain name of a website is not a legal entity, and is not therefore capable of being sued. See e.g., Righthaven
LLC v. Wolf, 813 F.Supp.2d 1265, 1267 n. 1 (D. Colo. 2011); Banks.com, Inc. v. Keery, No. 09-6039, 2010 WL
1688612, *5 (N.D. Cal. April 26, 2010) (“[A] website, in and of itself, is not a legal entity capable of being
sued.”). Even if Huon had properly alleged federal subject-matter jurisdiction, the Second Amended Complaint
would nonetheless fail to state a valid claim against websites Abovethelaw.com, Jezebel.com, and
Newnation.org.
The Court grants Huon 30 days to file a Third Amended Complaint curing all jurisdictional defects, including
any defects other than those expressly noted above.

Courtroom Deputy

11C3054 Huon vs. Breaking Media, et al.

AIR

Page 2 of 2