Ferrell v. Yahoo
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 7/31/2015. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 7/31/15)
UNITED STATES IlISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ~IARYLAi'"D
KEYONNA FERRELL,
Plaintiff:
v.
Civil Action No. 10C-15-1618
YAIIOO,
Defendant.
~IDIORAi'"DU~l
OPli'"IO:"I
On June 2, 2015, pro se Plaintiff Keyonna Ferrell ("Ferrell'") tiled the above-captioned
Complaint, ECF No.1,
together \vilh a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, ECF NO.2.
Ferrell appears indigent, therefore, she is granted leave to proceed inji.Jrma pauperis.
IlACKGROU:"ID
In the Complaint, Ferrell claims that certain images she had posted on her Pintcrcstl page,
and perhaps a video that she did not post, remained accessible through the search engine
operated
by Defendant
Yahoo
("Yahoo"')
even after she had removed
the images
from her
Pintcresl page. Ferrell alleges that Yahoo has thus defamed her character and seeks relief in the
form of an order that the images be removed from her internet search results and an av.'ard of
S500,000 to $100,000 in monetary damages.
It appears Ferrell is referring to the "",-ebsitcand mobile telephone application Pinterest, on
which a user creates an individual page to share photos and links with other users. See Pinterest
(July 27, 2015), https://v.v.w.pinterest.com/.
IJISCVSSION
I. Failure to State 11ell,iot
Under 28 U,S.C.
* 1915 this Court is granted the discretion to dismiss a proceeding
filed
in forma pauperis if it determines that the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted. or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.c. ~1915(c)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
IIere, the Complaint fails to state a
claim. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a plaintiff is required to provide "a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," and each averment of a
pleading must be "simple, concise, and direct," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) & (d)(l).
A pleading
must allege enough facts to state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009); /Jell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
t\ claim is plausible when
"the plaintiff pleads factual content that al1o'••..the Court to draw the reasonable inference that
s
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
courts have a duty to construe self-represented
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Although district
pleadings liberally, a pro se plaintiff must
nevertheless allege facts that state a cause of action and provide enough detail to illuminate the
nature of the claim and allow defendants to respond. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,94
(2007); Beaudeu v. City ofllampton.
775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985) (stating that the duty
to construe pro se pleadings liberally does not require courts to "conjure up questions never
squarely presented").
In this case, the Complaint does not state a plausible defamation elaim against Yahoo. In
a case based on diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. S 1332(a) (providing federal jurisdiction over
civil actions in which the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000). the district court applies the law of the state in which the court is located. in
2
this case Maryland, including the forum state's choice of la\\! rules. Colgan Air. Inc. v. Raytheon
Aircraft Co., 507 F.3d 270, 275 (4th Cir. 2007). Dcfamation is a tort claim.
Under Maryland
law, the tort doctrine of lex loci delkti provides that the substantivc law to be applied in a tort
case is that of the state in which the alleged wrong occurred. which appears most likely to be
Virginia in this case.2
Philip Morris, Inc. v. Angi!lelli, 752 A,2d 200, 230 (Md. 2000). Under
Virginia law, thc elements of defamation are "( 1) publication of (2) an actionable statement with
(3) the requisite intent."
Schaecher v. Bouffalllt, 772 S.E2d 589, 594 (Va. 2015) (intcrnal
citation and quotation marks omittcd). "An 'actionable' statement is both false and defamatory,"
Id. Words are defamatory ifthcy tend to "harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the
estimation of the community,"
hold a person "up to scorn, ridicule, or contempt," or are
calculated to render a person "infamous odious, or ridiculous."
Id. (internal citation and
quotation marks omitted).
Here, Ferrell alleges that she put information on the internet that remained accessible
through the Yahoo search engine and thus available for viewing by the public alter she had
removed the images from Pintcrcst. She also alleges that a video not associated with her appears
among search results based on her name.
information made available was false.
Nothing about this allegation suggests that the
Ferrell therefore fails to state a claim for defamation.
The Complaint docs not allege \",'hereany of the incidents occurred. Ferrell has provided the
Court with mailing addresses in Virginia and South Carolina. Because Ferrell has indicated that
her preferred mailing address is in Virginia, it seems most likely that Virginia is where she
resides and where the incidents occurred. The Court therefore applies Virginia law. However,
the Court's ruling would bc the same regardless of whether the law of South Carolina, or even
Maryland, \.\"as applied instead. Like Virginia. both South Carolina and Maryland require a
plaintiff alleging a defamation claim to show that the statement in question was false and
defamatory. See Fountain \.'.First Reliance Bank, 730 S.E.2d 305, 309 (S.c. 2012); Piscatelli v.
Van Smith, 35 A.3d 1140, 1147 (Md. 2012). As discussed above. Ferrell has failed to allege
plausibly that the published materials were false.
2
3
Furthermore, the Court is unable to identify any other cause of action based on the allegations in
Ferrell's Complaint. Thus, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
and is dismissed.)
II. "-lotion to Seal
Ferrell also filed a Motion to Seal the case on June 10,2015.
Eer
NO.3. The full text of
the Motion states: ""Please [s)eal all civil suits riled including address, names and [d]ocuments
immediately [sic)." Id. On July 6, 2015, Ferrell filed a second Motion to Seal, ECF No.5, in
which she supplemcnted her original request by asserting that the Court should seal all lilings in
this civil case because "celebrities and [B)arack [are] involved:' making the case "substantially
more noteworthy."
[d. at I.
Local Rule 105.11, \vhich governs the sealing of all documents filed in the record, states
10
relevant part; '"Any motion seeking the sealing of pleadings, motions, exhibits or other
documents to be tiled in the Court record shall include (a) proposed reasons supported by
specific factual representations to justify the scaling and (b) an explanation why altcrnatives to
sealing would not provide sufficient protection."
Local Rule 105.11 (D. Md. 2014). The rule
balances the public's general right 10 inspect and copy judicial records and documents, see Nixon
v. Warner Commc'm, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978), with competing interests that sometimes
) The Court also notes that there is a significant question whether venue is proper in this
District. Venue would be proper if the defendant is a resident of Maryland, or if a substantial
part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Maryland. 28 U.S.c. S
1391(b). There is no indication that any of events in this case occurred in Maryland, and there is
a substantial question whether defendant Yahoo, a corporation headquartered in California, can
be deemed to be a resident of Maryland. See 28 U.s.c. 9 1391(c)(2) (noting that a corporation is
"deemed to reside in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court's
personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question"). Thus, even if the Complaint
stated a cognizable claim. this action likely should have been brought in Virginia or South
Carolina, \-vhere Ferrell presumably accessed Pintcrcst. or in California, where there is
undoubtedly personal jurisdiction over Yahoo.
4
outweigh the public's right, seeln re Knight Pub! 'g Co" 743 F.2d 231,235 (4th Cir, 1984), The
common-law
presumptive
right of access can only be rebutted by sho\\'ing that ';countervaiiing
interests heavily out\\.'eigh the public interest in access:" Doe v, Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 265-
66 (4th Cir, 2014) (quoting Rushford v, New Yorker Magazine. Inc" 846 F,2d 249, 253 (4th Cir,
1988».
Because
neither of the Motions
to Seal identify such a countervailing
interest, the
Motions are denied.
CO:-;CLUSIOI'i
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is GRANTED.
Motions to Seal are DENIED.
The case is DISMISSED
Order foIl0\.•...
5.
Date: July 31, 2015
5
for failure to state a claim.
The
A separate
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?