Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 45K views

    John Paul Mac Isaac

    Uploaded by

    Zerohedge Janitor
    The court order dismisses the plaintiff's complaint for defamation against Twitter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The complaint alleged diversity jurisdiction but failed to establish complete diversity between the plaintiff, a Delaware resident, and the defendant Twitter, which is also a Delaware corporation. As the complaint did not properly allege Twitter's principal place of business, diversity was not clearly established. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    John Paul Mac Isaac

    Uploaded by

    Zerohedge Janitor
    45K views3 pages
    The court order dismisses the plaintiff's complaint for defamation against Twitter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The complaint alleged diversity jurisdiction but failed to establish complete diversity between the plaintiff, a Delaware resident, and the defendant Twitter, which is also a Delaware corporation. As the complaint did not properly allege Twitter's principal place of business, diversity was not clearly established. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

    Original Description:

    John Paul Mac Isaac

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court order dismisses the plaintiff's complaint for defamation against Twitter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The complaint alleged diversity jurisdiction but failed to establish complete diversity between the plaintiff, a Delaware resident, and the defendant Twitter, which is also a Delaware corporation. As the complaint did not properly allege Twitter's principal place of business, diversity was not clearly established. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    45K views3 pages

    John Paul Mac Isaac

    Uploaded by

    Zerohedge Janitor
    The court order dismisses the plaintiff's complaint for defamation against Twitter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The complaint alleged diversity jurisdiction but failed to establish complete diversity between the plaintiff, a Delaware resident, and the defendant Twitter, which is also a Delaware corporation. As the complaint did not properly allege Twitter's principal place of business, diversity was not clearly established. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Case 1:20-cv-25264-BB Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/29/2020 Page 1 of 3

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


    SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

    Case No. 1:20-cv-25264-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

    JOHN PAUL MAC ISAAC,

    Plaintiff,

    v.

    TWITTER, INC.

    Defendant.
    ________________________________/

    ORDER

    THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of the record. On December

    28, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Defamation, ECF No. [1], asserting a single count for libel

    per se and seeking damages, including punitive damages equal to $500,000,000.00. According to

    the Complaint, Defendant made false statements that Plaintiff is a “hacker” in reference to

    materials obtained by the New York Post and shared on Twitter in an exposé concerning the

    contents of Hunter Biden’s computer hard drive. For the reasons set forth below, the Court lacks

    subject matter jurisdiction.

    “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized

    by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Kokkonen v. Guardian

    Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (internal citations omitted). “It is to be presumed

    that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests

    upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Turner v. Bank of N. Am., 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 8, 11

    (1799) and McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182-183 (1936)). “Indeed, it

    is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire

    into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am.
    Case 1:20-cv-25264-BB Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/29/2020 Page 2 of 3

    Case No. 1:20-cv-25264-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

    Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). “The jurisdiction of a court over the subject

    matter of a claim involves the court’s competency to consider a given type of case and cannot be

    waived or otherwise conferred upon the court by the parties. Otherwise, a party could work a

    wrongful extension of federal jurisdiction and give courts power the Congress denied

    them.” Id. (quoting Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 678 F.2d 992, 1000-01 (11th Cir. 1982))

    (internal quotations omitted). A “district court may act sua sponte to address the issue

    of subject matter jurisdiction at any time.” Herskowitz v. Reid, 187 F. App’x 911, 912-13 (11th

    Cir. 2006) (footnote call numbers and citations omitted). This is because federal courts are

    “‘empowered to hear only those cases within the judicial power of the United States as defined by

    Article III of the Constitution,’ and which have been entrusted to them by a jurisdictional grant

    authorized by Congress.” Univ. of S. Ala., 168 F.3d at 409 (quoting Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d

    1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994)). Accordingly, “once a federal court determines that it is

    without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue.” Id. at 410.

    The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a resident of Delaware and that Defendant is a

    Delaware corporation “with an office in Dade County, Florida.” ECF No. [1] at ¶¶ 2-3. The sole

    basis for subject matter jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship. Id. at ¶ 4; see also ECF No. [1-1]

    (listing diversity as the basis for jurisdiction). For a court to have diversity jurisdiction pursuant

    to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), “all plaintiffs must be diverse from all defendants.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am.

    Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d at 412. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c), “a corporation shall be deemed a

    citizen of every State . . . by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where

    it has its principal place of business[.]” Thus, accepting the Complaint’s allegations as true,1 the

    1
    The Court cannot conclude that Defendant is a Florida citizen. The Complaint merely alleges that
    Defendant maintains an office in Florida, but it does not allege where the “principal place of
    business” is located. According to Twitter’s website, its employees work across “35+ offices
    worldwide.” See https://about.twitter.com/en_us/company.html (last visited December 28, 2020).
    2
    Case 1:20-cv-25264-BB Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/29/2020 Page 3 of 3

    Case No. 1:20-cv-25264-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

    Complaint fails to allege complete diversity. Therefore, the Court is without subject matter

    jurisdiction over the instant action.

    Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

    1. The Complaint, ECF No. [1], is DISMISSED without prejudice;

    2. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT and all deadlines are

    TERMINATED;

    3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

    DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on December 28, 2020.

    _________________________________
    BETH BLOOM
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

    Copies to:

    Counsel of Record

    You might also like