Winter et al v. Facebook, Inc. et al

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) For these reasons, the Court will dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 1/21/2022. (CBL)

Case: 4:21-cv-01046-JAR Doc. #: 31 Filed: 01/21/22 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 321

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ELLIOT WINTER, et. al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
MONICA DOLAN,
Defendant.

Case No. 4:21-CV-01046 JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. On July 9, 2021, Plaintiffs Elliot
Winter and Alexandria Hurlburt (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Facebook, Inc.
(“Facebook”); TikTok Inc., TikTok PTE Ltd., Bytedance Ltd., and Bytedance Inc. (“TikTok”);
and Monica Dolan (“Dolan”), in the Circuit Court of St. Louis City, Missouri. See Elliot Winter,
et al. v. Facebook, Inc., et al., Case No. 2122-CC08817 (22nd Jud. Cir.). Plaintiffs asserted claims
against Dolan for defamation – slander (Count I); defamation – libel (Count II); tortious
interference with business contract and expectancy (Count III); invasion of privacy (Count IV);
false light (Count V); intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count VI); stalking (Count VII);
harassment (Count VIII); and unlawful posting of certain information over the internet (Count IX);
and a single claim of “gross negligence” against Facebook and TikTok (Count X). Facebook, with
TikTok’s consent, removed the case to this Court on August 20, 2021 based on diversity
jurisdiction. Plaintiffs did not move to remand or otherwise challenge jurisdiction. Facebook and
TikTok then moved to dismiss.
On November 22, 2021, the Court dismissed Facebook and Tiktok after concluding that
1

Case: 4:21-cv-01046-JAR Doc. #: 31 Filed: 01/21/22 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 322

Plaintiffs’ claim against them was barred by § 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”).
(Doc. No. 26). The Court subsequently dismissed Defendants TikTok PTE Ltd., Bytedance Ltd.,
and Bytedance Inc. since Plaintiffs’ complaint made no allegations against these entities and none
of them had been served. (Doc. No. 30). Dolan is the sole remaining defendant. Dolan, proceeding
pro se, filed her answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint on December 20, 2021. (Doc. No. 28).
In every federal case the court must be satisfied it has jurisdiction before it turns to the
merits of other legal arguments. Carlson v. Arrowhead Concrete Works, Inc., 445 F.3d 1046, 1050
(8th Cir. 2006). Here, Plaintiffs allege that Dolan, a resident of Snohomish County in the State of
Washington, “left her residence in Washington and as of the date of the filing of the [complaint]
is presently residing in the State of Missouri for the sole purpose to harass, chastise and engage in
other illegal conduct to damage Plaintiff in this lawsuit.” (Compl. at ¶¶ 4, 10). This allegation is
inadequate to establish with certainty Dolan’s citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
Sanders v. Clemco Industries, 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Under certain circumstances the Court may in its discretion give a party an opportunity to
amend the complaint to cure pleading deficiencies. However, given the unusual circumstances in
this case, involving a pro se defendant and allegations that are largely conclusory, the Court
declines to do so. For these reasons, the Court will dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Dated this 21st day of January, 2022.

_______________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2