Thomas et al v. Barrett et al
Filing
18
OPINION ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
______
MARY JO THOMAS, PENELOPE
SHAWASHENHURST,
MELISSA IMPENS, and
SEVEN STAR SANCTUARY AND
RESCUE, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
File No. 1:12-cv-00074
v.
HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL
SUSAN BARRETT, PETER MACQUEEN,
PATRICIA LAMBERT, ANDIE
CAVANAUGH, and YOLANDA RIOS,
Defendants.
/
OPINION
Plaintiffs Mary Jo Thomas, Penelope Shaw-Ashenhurst, Melissa Impens and Seven
Star Sanctuary and Rescue, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) commenced this action against Defendants
Susan Barrett, Peter MacQueen, Patricia Lambert, Andie Cavanaugh, and Yolanda Rios
(“Defendants”), alleging defamation (Count I), and Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress (Count II). (Dkt. No. 1). The actions giving rise to the dispute involve postings made
by Defendants on Facebook.com and Craigslist.org. Id. Before the Court is Defendants’
motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Dkt.
No. 6) For the reasons detailed herein, the motion will be granted.
I. PERSONAL JURISDICTION
A. Generally
Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that personal jurisdiction exists. Neogen
Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d 883, 887 (6th Cir. 2002). When a court rules on
a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without holding an evidentiary hearing,
the pleadings and affidavits are considered in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Dean v.
Motel 6 Operating L.P., 134 F.3d 1269, 1272 (6th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff must make a prima
facie showing that jurisdiction is proper. Id. This burden can be met by establishing
sufficient contacts in the forum state with reasonable particularity. Neogen, 282 F.3d at 887.
Dismissal in this procedural posture is proper if all the facts Plaintiff alleges fail to state a
prima facie case for jurisdiction. CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257, 1262 (6th
Cir.1996).
A federal court's exercise of personal jurisdiction in a diversity of citizenship case in
Michigan must be both authorized by Michigan’s long-arm statutes, and in accordance with
the Due Process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. Neogen, 282 F.3d at 888
(citing Reynolds v. Int’l Amateur Athletic Fed’n, 23 F.3d 1110, 1115 (6th Cir.1994)).
This case concerns statements posted online by Defendants, all of whom live in North
Carolina. One statement was posted to Craigslist.org, and the remaining twenty-four
statements at issue were posted to Facebook.com (Dkt. No. 1). The statements precipitated
from Plaintiffs’ involvement in the sheltering, and subsequent adoption, of a runaway pet
2
dog. They refer to Plaintiffs’ business practices concerning the operation of their animal
shelter, allege criminal acts, question Plaintiffs’ integrity and morality, and express a hope
that Plaintiffs will cease their business operations. Id. This Court must determine whether
these statements, made by North Carolinian Defendants, in North Carolina, concerning a
local North Carolinian controversy, justify exercising personal jurisdiction in Michigan over
Defendants.
B. Michigan’s Long-Arm Statutes
1. General Jurisdiction
Pursuant to Michigan’s Long-Arm Statute, one is subject to general jurisdiction in
Michigan if one has been served with process, is domiciled, or consents to be sued in the
state. Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.701. It is undisputed that none of these conditions apply to
Defendants here, thus, exercising general jurisdiction would be inappropriate in this case.
2. Specific Jurisdiction
Michigan allows exercise of limited jurisdiction where an act arises out of one of
seven relationships with the state, including business dealings, property possession, and
domicile location. The only condition upon which Plaintiffs rely in this case is the second the “effects doctrine” - which states that specific jurisdiction is proper in Michigan,
following: “[t]he doing or causing an act to be done, or causing consequences to occur, in
the state resulting in an action for tort.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.705. Neither party
disputes that only this second condition applies in this case, so it is this condition to which
we turn our attention.
3
A case relying on the effects doctrine is one which relies on the consequences caused
by tortious activity to establish sufficient contacts such that Michigan is a proper forum state.
When such a case is brought in Michigan, Plaintiff must prove that (1) Defendants acted
intentionally, (2) Defendants’ action was expressly aimed at the State of Michigan, and (3)
that the brunt of the injuries were felt in Michigan. Audi AG & Volkswagon of Am., Inc. V.
D’Amato, 341 F.Supp.2d 734, 746.
Plaintiffs assert that the statements made by Defendants caused “severe emotional
distress, as well as a serious negative financial impact on their business, . . . a business with
operations in the State of Michigan.” (Dkt. No. 14). Only one of the plaintiffs resides in
Michigan (Dkt. No. 1); and a corporation cannot feel emotional distress. Therefore, when
this court examines the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) claim under the
second condition of Michigan’s Long-Arm Statute, we will consider only the alleged
emotional distress of Plaintiff Mary Jo Thomas.
There has been no refutation that Defendants posted the statements intentionally, so
the first prong of the effects test is met. As with the rest of the effects doctrine, we examine
the “expressly aimed” requirement with caution, as plaintiffs will always feel the effects of
an injury in their home state. Audi AG, 341 F.Supp.2d at, 746. Defendants’ passing mention
of Michigan, on a website dedicated to a local controversy in North Carolina, is too tenuous
a connection to qualify as being expressly aimed at Michigan, but even if that were not so,
the facts of this case are also insufficient to satisfy the third prong of the effects test.
4
The third prong of this test requires that the brunt of the injuries were felt in Michigan.
Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that Plaintiffs suffered “severe and serious emotional distress.”
(Dkt. No. 1). This general allegation that all Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress does not
allege with reasonable particularity what injuries were felt in Michigan. Only one of the
plaintiffs lives in Michigan, but lacking any further specificity, Plaintiffs have failed to allege
the injuries in Michigan with reasonable particularity. Moreover, each mention of Plaintiffs
in the postings is within the context of an attempt to sully their professional reputations
regarding their business dealings, and do not particularly address the direct intentional
infliction of emotional distress toward any of the individual plaintiffs, much less the one
plaintiff domiciled in Michigan. Plaintiffs have failed to show that the brunt of the injury
was felt in Michigan. Having failed to show that the brunt of the emotional injury was felt
in Michigan, Plaintiffs have not successfully made a prima facie showing that Defendants
caused Plaintiffs to suffer emotional distress in Michigan.
In addition to emotional distress, Plaintiffs also allege economic loss. (Dkt. No. 1, at
¶25). Plaintiffs contend that they experienced a “serious negative financial impact on their
business [Seven Star Sanctuary and Rescue, Inc.], . . . a business with operations in the State
of Michigan.” (Dkt. No. 14). Though the company is now licensed to transact business in
Michigan, that was not the case when the relevant comments were posted. (Dkt. No. 15
Exhibit. A). When the comments were posted online, Plaintiffs’ company was merely
pursuing the establishment of operations in Michigan.
5
Though Plaintiffs argue that
“Defendants knew they were targeting a business with operations in Michigan,” (Dkt. No.
14, at 17), this is not reflected in their complaint, which quotes Defendant Susan Barrett’s
comment that “Mary Jo Thomas is starting her own no kill shelter in Michigan.” (Dkt. No.
1, at 5)(emphasis added).
Seven Star Sanctuary is clearly not a company located solely in Michigan, and it is
debatable whether it had a location in Michigan at the time the comments in this case were
posted. But even if we assume Seven Star Sanctuary had a recognizable business presence
in Michigan when Defendants’ comments about Plaintiffs’ business were made, they were
directed at Plaintiffs’ locations outside of Michigan. The brunt of any injury to the Plaintiffs’
operations occurred outside of Michigan, primarily in North Carolina, where the controversy
pertaining to Plaintiffs’ business operations arose. Defendants’ comments were targeted at
North Carolina, rather than Michigan, and thus, the brunt of any and all injury was not felt
in Michigan. Lifestyle Lift Holding Co., Inc. v. Prendiville, 768 F.Supp.2d 929 (E.D.Mich.,
2011). Plaintiffs have failed to establish, with reasonable particularity, sufficient minimum
contacts with the state of Michigan to make a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction under
Michigan’s Long-Arm Statutes.
C. Fourteenth Amendment
Even if Defendants’ conduct satisfied the Michigan Long-arm Statutes, the Court
cannot exercise personal jurisdiction unless the conduct also satisfies Due Process under the
Fourteenth Amendment. To exercise personal jurisdiction, the Fourteenth Amendment
6
requires sufficient contacts with the forum state such that traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice are not offended. Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct.
154 (U.S. 1945). This requires an analysis using these three criteria:
First, the defendant must purposefully avail himself of the privilege of acting in the
forum state or causing a consequence in the forum state. Second, the cause of action
must arise from the defendant's activities there. Finally, the acts of the defendant or
consequences caused by the defendant must have a substantial enough connection
with the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant
reasonable.
Bird v. Parsons, 289 F.3d 865, 874 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Southern Mach. Co. v. Mohasco
Industries, Inc., 401 F.2d 374, 381 (6th Cir. 1968)).
1. Purposeful Availment
In jurisdictional disputes where defamatory statements have been made on a website,
such as in this case, there are two tests commonly applied to determine whether defendants
purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of acting in the forum state,: the Calder
effects test, and the Zippo sliding scale test. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984); Zippo
Mfg. Co. v. Zippo DOT Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119, 1124 (W.D. Pa. 1997). Plaintiff has
not met the requirements put forth in either test.
The Zippo test relies on the level of interactivity of the website in question. A
website, such as the Facebook page in this case, can be considered purposeful availment of
the privilege of acting in a forum state “if the website is interactive to a degree that reveals
specifically intended interaction with residents of the state.” Neogen, 282 F.3d at 890 (citing
Zippo, 952 F.Supp. at 1124). Defendants’ Craigslist post was merely “[a] web site that does
7
little more than make information available to those who are interested in it.” Zippo, 952
F.Supp. at 1124. Therefore the Craigslist post qualifies as passive, and falls short of
purposeful availment.
Plaintiffs contend that the Facebook page was not simply a posting of information to
be read by visitors to the site, because Defendants intended to interact with Plaintiffs. (Dkt.
No. 14). The opportunity to comment on, “like,” or “share” Facebook posts does very little
to move Defendants’ page farther up the continuum from passive to interactive. Although
these features make a page slightly more interactive, Defendants’ site lacked a commercial
nature, and additional interactivity was absent. This means that, as above, the Facebook page
“does little more than make information available,” and qualifies as a passive site. Zippo, 952
F.Supp. at 1124.
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants intended for the information they posted to have an
effect on Plaintiffs in Michigan, and that this qualifies as interaction. However, the hope that
results will later transpire as a result of posting information online does not make the site on
which it is posted any more or less interactive.
The alternative test when considering personal jurisdiction in cases such as this, the
Calder effects test, focuses not on a website’s interactivity, but on the effects the conduct at
issue had in the forum state. In Calder, Petitioners “wrote and edited an article that they
knew would have a potentially devastating impact upon respondent, and they knew that the
brunt of that injury would be felt by respondent in the State in which she lives and works and
8
in which the magazine has its largest circulation.” Calder, 465 U.S. at 783-784. The
analysis of any effects Plaintiffs encountered in the state does not differ from our analysis
done in this regard under Michigan’s Long-Arm Statute. Only one of the plaintiffs lives in
Michigan, the brunt of the injury was not felt in this state, and any effects on Plaintiffs’
business can reasonably be understood to have centered in North Carolina.
Additionally, Plaintiffs claim that the very nature of the internet means that they were
defamed to a much wider audience than the plaintiff in Calder. (Dkt. No. 14, at 13). This is
simply not true. In Calder, roughly twelve percent of the tabloid’s readership was located
in the forum state - that is, roughly 600,000 subscribers. Calder, 465 U.S. at 1484. The mere
possibility that the website may be viewed by anyone in the world with internet access does
not mean that Plaintiffs feel a worldwide effect.
Defendants’ statements were made
regarding a local issue, and was viewed almost exclusively by individuals in North Carolina.
Calder did not assess the number of people who may have seen the defamatory article in
passing, only the actual subscriber base in the forum state. Id. Similarly, only the actual
audience rather than the potential audience should be considered here. In the end, as stated
in the analysis of Michigan’s Long-Arm Statute, the facts do not indicate that sufficient
effects occurred in Michigan to qualify as purposeful availment. Therefore, there has been
no showing of purposeful availment under the Zippo sliding scale or the Calder effects test.
2. Arising from Action or Consequences in Michigan
After examining whether Defendants purposefully availed themselves of the privilege
9
of acting in the forum state or causing a consequence in the forum state, we look to the
second criterion of the Due Process analysis - whether the cause of action arises from
Defendants’ activities in Michigan.
Neither party contends that Defendants acted in
Michigan, rather, we examine whether this controversy arises from consequences occurring
in Michigan due to Defendants’ actions in North Carolina. The consequences which have
allegedly arisen from Defendants’ actions, have already been amply analyzed under both the
Calder effects test and Michigan’s Long-Arm Statutes. Plaintiffs have failed to make a
prima facie showing of sufficient consequences in Michigan to justify an exercise of personal
jurisdiction.
3. Substantial Enough Connection to Make Exercise Reasonable in Michigan
The third and final step in the Due Process analysis is to determine whether
substantial enough connection exists with the forum state such that it would be reasonable
to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants. In this case, the connection is tenuous
between North Carolina Defendants posting about a North Carolina issue, on a web page
viewed almost exclusively by individuals in or near North Carolina, intending to dissuade
Plaintiffs from acting in North Carolina. The Court finds that a connection this tenuous fails
to satisfy the third criterion for a number of reasons. None of the Defendants do business
with Michigan, nor have any of them even been to Michigan in over a decade; the statements
at issue were made in North Carolina, intended for, and almost exclusively viewed by a North
Carolina audience; only one of the plaintiffs resides in Michigan; and Seven Star Sanctuary,
10
which has its main operations outside of Michigan, was not yet licensed to do business in
Michigan when the statements were made. Accordingly, it would be unreasonable to
exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Plaintiffs have failed to show that personal
jurisdiction would be proper in Michigan under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
II. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, this Court finds that exercising personal jurisdiction over
Defendants would be improper under both the Due Process requirements of the Fourteenth
Amendment, and Michigan’s Long-Arm Statutes. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that
Defendants’ Facebook page was sufficiently interactive to establish purposeful availment in
Michigan, that Defendants’ actions were sufficiently focused on Michigan to purposefully
avail themselves of acting or producing consequences in Michigan, or that the brunt of any
alleged injury was felt by Plaintiffs in Michigan. Therefore, exercising personal jurisdiction
over Defendants would be inappropriate. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion will be granted.
An order consistent with this opinion will be entered.
Dated: July 19, 2012
/s/ Robert Holmes Bell
ROBERT HOLMES BELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
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?