Louisa v. Boston Broadside et al

Filing 10

Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER entered granting #8 Motion to Remand (Halley, Taylor)

Case 1:20-cv-11691-FDS Document 10 Filed 09/18/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_______________________________________
)
NICHOLAS J. LOUISA, ESQ.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
NETFLIX, INC.; NETFLIX WORLDWIDE )
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; JIGSAW
)
PRODUCTIONS, LCC; MUDDY WATERS )
PRODUCTIONS, LLC; ALEX GIBNEY;
)
RICHARD PERELLO; STACEY OFFMAN; )
PETER KNOWLES; SAMANTHA
)
KNOWLES; LISA SIEGEL BELANGER; )
LONNIE BRENNAN; and the BOSTON
)
BROADSIDE,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

Civil Action No.
20-11691-FDS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
SAYLOR, C.J.
On August 13, 2020, plaintiff Nicholas Louisa filed a complaint in Middlesex County
Superior Court against defendants Netflix, Inc.; Netflix Worldwide Entertainment, LLC; Jigsaw
Productions, LLC; Muddy Waters Productions, LLC; Alex Gibney; Richard Perello; Stacey
Offman; Peter Knowles; Samantha Knowles; Lisa Siegel Belanger; Lonnie Brennan; and the
Boston Broadside. On September 15, 2020, defendant Boston Broadside removed the case to
this Court on the basis of claimed federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The next
day, plaintiff moved to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Federal-question jurisdiction extends to cases that arise “under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. To determine whether a claim arises under

Case 1:20-cv-11691-FDS Document 10 Filed 09/18/20 Page 2 of 2

federal law, courts look to the “well-pleaded” allegations of the complaint, ignoring potential
defenses. See Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 207 (2004); Beneficial Nat’l Bank v.
Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6 (2003). Thus, the existence of a federal defense—including a defense
that relies on a constitutional provision—“normally does not create statutory ‘arising under’
jurisdiction, and a defendant may not [generally] remove a case to federal court unless plaintiff’s
complaint establishes that the case ‘arises under’ federal law.” Aetna Health, 542 U.S. at 207
(internal quotation and citations omitted); see also Beneficial, 539 U.S. at 6.
Here, there is no federal question on the face of the amended complaint. It alleges only
state-law claims: defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of
emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. (Def. Ex. 5). Defendant may raise a defense to the
defamation claim under the First Amendment, but the existence of a defense based on the
Constitution, under the circumstances presented here, cannot form the basis of federal-question
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED. The case is
hereby REMANDED to the Middlesex County Superior Court.
So Ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor, IV
F. Dennis Saylor, IV
Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: September 18, 2020

2