Abboud v. Yelen

• Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: February 7, 2024
• Docket: 3:22-cv-01983
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

‘UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT □

- MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ‘CARINE ABBOUD, ae Plaintiff, _ CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-cv-01983 ee (SAPORITO, Md) ee

JENNIFER ANGELO YELEN, oo

Defendant.

‘MEMORANDUM □ The plaintiff in . this case, Carine Abboud, is a social media “influencer with a “slop” on YouTube, focused. on motherhood. She resides iin the United Arab Emirates. Abboud has brought this fee-paid civil action against-the defendant, Jennifer Angelo Yelen, a resident of narenne ‘County. Pennsylvania, ascerting state-law seamen tinm false light invasion of privacy, and public disclosure of private facts invasion of privacy tort eearel based on certain. □ posts or comments made. by Yelen on social media: Abboud ae an’ award of compensatory and punitive damages. oe

Rather than filing a lawsuit in state court, Abboud has brought this

_ action in federal district court, asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 US.C. § 1332(a)(2). But the plaintiff has failed to satisfy her burden of

pleading the existence of this federal district court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Chem. Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 177 F.3d 210, 222 n.13 (3d Cir. 1999) (“The plaintiff has the burden of pleading the existence of the court’s jurisdiction, and, in a diversity action, the plaintiff must state all parties citizenships such that the © existence of complete diversity can be confirmed.”) (citation omitted). The amended complaint alleges that Yelen is a resident of Pennsylvania, and

that Abboud is a resident of the United Arab Emirates. But ‘diversity

jurisdiction is based on citizenship, not residence.” Brooks v. Hickman, 101 FR.D. 16, 18 (W.D. Pa. 1984); see also Whitaker v. Herr Foods, Ine.; 198 F. Supp. 3d 416, 483 1.3 (E:D. Pa: 2016) (“[T]he diversity requirement is one of citizenship. Residence is not equivalent to citizenship.”) (citation omitted); Forman v. BRI Corp., 532 F. Supp. 49, 51 (E.D. Pa. 1982) (“[Alllegations of residency does not properly invoke this Court’s jurisdiction when premised upon diversity of citizenship.”); Fleming v..

_ Mack Trucks, Inc., 508 F. Supp. 917, 919 (ED. Pa, 1981) (“Residence and domicile cannot be equated. For diversity purposes citizenship means domicile; mere residence will not suffice.”) (citation omitted). □ Moreover, proper exercise of diversity jurisdiction also requires a

complaint to allege an amount in controversy that exceeds $7 5,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The original, now superseded, complaint included ‘only a generalized allegation that. “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00.” Compl. § 3. Doc. 1. It failed to otherwise -plead any facts line the amount in controversy.

The defendant moved to dismiss the original complaint for lack of □ subject matter jurisdiction, highlighting this “very eee See Def’s Ist Mot. to Dismiss § 3, Doc. 4 Def’s Br. in Supp. of Ist Mot. to Dismiss 4— 6, Doc. 15. In a the plaintiff filed an amended complaint as a □

“matter of course, rendering. the defendant’s ‘motion moot. See Am. Compl, Doc. 21; Order, Doe. 22. The defendant nae moved to dismiss the amend complaint as well for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Def.’s 2d Mot. to Dismiss 7, 23; Def’s Br. in Supp. of 2d Mot. to Dismiss 4-7, Doc. 24. The plaintiff has filed a brief in opposition, arguing that the amount in controversy is sufficiently ‘alleged. See Pls Br. in Opp’n to 2d Mot. to. Dismiss 9-14, Doe. 25-1. The defendant has not filed a reply brief. Thus, □ the second motion to dismiss is fully briefed and ripe for decision. her amended complaint, the plaintiff has added two specific,

allegations with respect to damages, which. she argues support her

assertion that this action.meets the amount-in-controversy requirement for exercise of diversity qurisdiction. First, Abboud has added an. allegation that: “As a direct and proximate result of Yelen’s publication of

the posts, Abboud. has been forced to incur mete costs for Phereoy and “medications in excess of $2,000 a month.” Am. Compl. q 35. Second, Abboud has added an allegation that: “As a meee and proximate result of Yelen’s publication of the posts, Abboud: has lost job opportunities paying over $100,000 per annum.” Id. § 36. The amended complaint pleads no other facts regarding her medical and financial injuries. These vague and conclusory allegations, eee insufficiently detailed to plausibly allege that the amount in controversy. exceeds the

jurisdictional threshold of $75,000. See Lapaglia v. Transamerica Cas. Ine. Co., 155 F. Supp. 3d 153, 155 (D. Conn. 2016) (finding that the Igbal- □ ‘Twombly plausibility requirement “govern|s] the evaluation of factual allegations that support federal subject matter jurisdiction, such as to evaluate facts alleged concerning an amount in controversy for paenosee of federal diversity jurisdiction”) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 'U.S. 662, (2009), and Bell Atl Corp. v Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see

ee

also Turban v. Bar Giacosa Corp., No. 19-CV-1138, 2019 WL 3495947, at -.*2-*3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2019); Penrod v. K&N Engrg, Inc., No. 18-cv-

02907 , 2019 WL 1958652, at *3 (D. Minn, May 2; 2019); of Dart Cherokee.

Basin Operating Co. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014) (requiring a

defendant's notice of removal. include “a plausible allegation that the.

amount: in COnTrONerey exceeds the jurisdictional threshold”) (emphasis ‘added. A complaint may, with the permission of the court, be amended to show jurisdictional facts: See 28 U.S.C. § 1653; Chem. Leaman Tank

Lines, 177 F.3d at 222 n.13. Under the circumstances presented, we find it appropriate to grant: the plaintiff leave to file 7 second enrenced| complaint that attempts to cure the jurisdictional pleading defects identified above. □

Accordingly, the defendant's motion to ene will be granted and . the amended een will be dismissed for lack of subject eter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule’ 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure’ but the plaintiff will be granted leave to file a Berond amended complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653.

An appropriate order follows.

‘Dated: February 7 , 2024 swegl. Fhe. os. : SEPH FS RITO,3R. □ United StatesMagistrate Judge

a. mo