Sethunya v. TIKTOK et al
Filing
93
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Overruling Objections, adopting 77 Report and Recommendations, and granting 36 Motion to Dismiss and 55 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Jill N. Parrish on 3/26/24. (dle)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
VICTORIA SETHUNYA,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIKTOK, INC.; C3780792 TIKTOK,
INC.; META PLATFORMS, INC.; and
FACEBOOK, INC.,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS,
ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND
GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Case No. 2:22-CV-00678-JNP-DAO
Defendant.
District Judge Jill N. Parrish
Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg
Before the court are a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants TikTok, Inc. (“TikTok”) and
a motion for summary judgment filed by Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”). ECF Nos. 36, 55. Plaintiff
Victoria Sethunya opposes both motions. ECF Nos. 54, 62. On January 23, 2024, Judge Oberg
issued two report and recommendations advising the court to grant the motion of both defendants.
See ECF Nos. 76, 77. Ms. Sethunya filed a timely objection responding to the two
recommendations. ECF Nos. 82, 82-4. For the reasons stated herein, Ms. Sethunya’s objection
(ECF No. 82) is OVERRULED, Judge Oberg’s recommendations (ECF Nos. 76, 77) are
ADOPTED, and the motions filed by Meta and TikTok are GRANTED.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court reviews de novo the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Ms.
Sethunya properly objected. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d
1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). The court reviews any other issues for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b) adv. comm. note to 1983 amend.; Johnson v. Progressive Leasing, No. 2:22-cv-00052,
2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105871, at *4, n.31 (D. Utah June 16, 2023) (citing Johnson v. Zema Sys.
Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999)).
De novo review is appropriately reserved only for those portions of a report and
recommendation to which a party raised objections that are “both timely and specific.” United
States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added). Thus,
even timely objections may not merit de novo review unless “an objection . . . is sufficiently
specific to focus the district court’s attention on the factual and legal issues that are truly in
dispute[.]” Id.
ANALYSIS
I.
TIKTOK’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Judge Oberg recommended that the court grant TikTok’s motion to dismiss. TikTok’s
motion requests the dismissal of Ms. Sethunya’s complaint with prejudice. ECF No. 36, at 36.
Judge Oberg recommended dismissing Ms. Sethunya’s copyright infringement claim on the basis
that Ms. Sethunya granted TikTok a license to use her content pursuant to that platform’s terms of
service. ECF No. 76, at 5–8. In support of that conclusion, Judge Oberg found that Ms. Sethunya
did not lack the capacity to contract and that the terms of service are not violative of Federal law.
Id. Finally, Judge Oberg recommended dismissing any tort claims that may have been stated in
Ms. Sethunya’s second amended complaint on the basis that the court would lack subject matter
jurisdiction if it dismissed the federal copyright claim. Id. at 8–9.
Ms. Sethunya did not raise any objections specific to the license that Judge Oberg found
Ms. Sethunya granted to TikTok by posting her content on that platform, her capacity to contract,
or the validity of TikTok’s terms of service. See generally ECF Nos. 82, 82-4. Finding Judge
Oberg’s analysis on these issues to be free of clear error, the court thus overrules Ms. Sethunya’s
2
objection in part and adopts Judge Oberg’s recommendation to the extent that it recommends the
dismissal of Ms. Sethunya’s copyright infringement claim against TikTok.
However, Ms. Sethunya’s objections did specifically contest Judge Oberg’s conclusion that
the court would lack jurisdiction over Ms. Sethunya’s remaining state law claims after the
dismissal of her federal copyright claim.1 Specifically, Ms. Sethunya argues that the parties’
diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy provide an alternative basis for the court to
exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. See ECF No. 82, at 2.
The court therefore reviews Judge Oberg’s recommendation regarding the dismissal of Ms.
Sethunya’s state law claims de novo. Conducting that analysis, this court adopts Judge Oberg’s
recommendation to dismiss Ms. Sethunya’s state law claims. In order to survive a motion to
dismiss, facts supporting diversity jurisdiction must be adequately alleged in a well-pled
complaint. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Ms. Sethunya’s complaint contains no factual allegations
supporting the claim she makes in her objection regarding the court’s diversity jurisdiction over
her state law claims. See generally ECF Nos. 2, 13, 17, 20. The court therefore overrules Ms.
Sethunya’s objection to the report and recommendation on this issue, determining instead to adopt
the report and recommendation in full and grant TikTok’s motion to dismiss without prejudice.
II.
META’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Judge Oberg also recommended granting Meta’s motion for summary judgment. Like
TikTok, Meta argues that Ms. Sethunya granted Meta a license to use her content pursuant to its
terms of service when she posted a video on Instagram. ECF No. 55, at 11–14. In the alternative,
Meta argued that the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”)
1
See ECF No. 76, n. 47 (citing Second Am. Compl. 2–3, 6, Doc. No. 20 (alleging “harassment”)).
3
protects Meta from liability because Ms. Sethunya failed to adequately provide Meta with notice
of alleged copyright infringement. Id., at 14–16. Finally, Meta asserted that Ms. Sethunya
insufficiently plead the required element of a causal link between Meta’s conduct and her alleged
injury in support of her copyright claim. Id., at 16–17. Judge Oberg recommended granting
summary judgment in Meta’s favor on Ms. Sethunya’s copyright claim on the first and second
grounds articulated in Meta’s motion. ECF No. 77, at 7–10. Judge Oberg then recommended
dismissing whatever state law claims may have been stated in Ms. Sethunya’s second amended
complaint on the basis that the court would lack subject matter jurisdiction if it granted Meta
summary judgment on the federal copyright claim. Id. at 10–11.
In response to the report and recommendation, Ms. Sethunya failed to raise any specific
objection to Judge Oberg’s recommendation that the court grant Meta summary judgment on Ms.
Sethunya’s copyright claim. As articulated with respect to TikTok’s motion, the court thus reviews
Judge Oberg’s recommendation, and finding it to be free of clear error, overrules Ms. Sethunya’s
objection and grants Meta’s motion for summary judgment on Ms. Sethunya’s copyright claim on
the basis that Ms. Sethunya granted Meta a license to use her content.2
As discussed above with respect to TikTok’s motion, Ms. Sethunya objected specifically
to Judge Oberg’s conclusion that the court would lack jurisdiction over Ms. Sethunya’s remaining
state law claims after the entry of summary judgment on her federal copyright claim against Meta.
For the same reasons articulated above with respect to TikTok’s motion, the court reviews Judge
Oberg’s recommendation de novo and overrules Ms. Sethunya’s objections, finding that dismissal
of any state law claims that may be stated in Ms. Sethunya’s second amended complaint is
Ms. Sethunya did raise a specific objection to Judge Oberg’s recommendation that the court grant Meta’s summary
judgment motion based on the DMCA. Because the license that Ms. Sethunya granted Meta provides an
alternatively sufficient basis to resolve the motion to dismiss, the court need not review Judge Oberg’s DMCA
analysis de novo.
2
4
necessary because Ms. Sethunya’ complaint failed to allege facts supporting diversity jurisdiction.
The court therefore adopts the report and recommendation on this issue and grants Meta’s motion
in full.
Accordingly, the court ORDERS as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation regarding TikTok’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 76)
is ADOPTED IN FULL.
2. The Report and Recommendation regarding Meta’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 77) is ADOPTED IN FULL.
3. Ms. Sethunya’s Objection to the motions filed by Meta and TikTok is OVERRULED.
4. TikTok’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 36) is GRANTED without prejudice.
5. Meta’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 55) is GRANTED IN PART as to
Ms. Sethunya’s copyright infringement claim and Ms. Sethunya’s remaining state law
claims against Meta are DISMISSED without prejudice.
Signed March 26, 2024
BY THE COURT
______________________________
Jill N. Parrish
United States District Court Judge
5
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?