United Federation of Churches LLC v. Johnson

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 6, 2023
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00509
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE

10 UNITED FEDERATION OF CHURCHES, 11 LLC, Case No. 20-cv-00509-RAJ Plaintiff, 12 ORDER GRANTING v. 13 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING 14 DAVID ALAN JOHNSON, et al., PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and 19 Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. ## 33, 42. For the reasons below, the 20 Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for 21 Preliminary Junction. 22 II. BACKGROUND 23 This case involves a dispute between Plaintiff United Federation of Churches and 24 its former members, Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants hacked several social 25 media accounts and began posting content critical of Plaintiff’s organization. Two of the 26 social media accounts at issue are located on Facebook— 27 1 the “Chapter” page and the “Allies” page. Dkt. # 26 at 6. Plaintiff brought federal law 2 claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 and the 3 Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”), and also brought associated 4 state law claims. 5 Following two rounds of motions to dismiss, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s federal 6 law claims and state law claims relating to the Chapter page on Facebook. Dkt. # 31 at 32. 7 Plaintiff did not amend its complaint. Defendants now ask the Court to dismiss for lack of 8 subject-matter jurisdiction. Dkt. # 33. 9 III. LEGAL STANDARD 10 A. FRCP 12(b)(1) 11 Federal courts are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and may only hear cases 12 authorized by the Constitution or a statutory grant. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 13 America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction 14 rests upon the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction. Id. Once it is determined that 15 a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court has no choice but to dismiss the 16 suit. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the 17 court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss 18 the action.”). 19 IV. DISCUSSION 20 With the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, Defendants now argue that 21 there is no federal question jurisdiction and the requirements for diversity jurisdiction 22 have not been met. District courts have diversity jurisdiction over all civil actions 23 between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, 24 exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Defendants argue that Plaintiff 25 cannot establish either prong. 26 A. Complete diversity. 27 Plaintiff has established the “complete diversity” requirement. To establish 1 complete diversity, the citizenship of each plaintiff must be diverse from the citizenship 2 of each defendant. LLCs, such as Plaintiff, are citizens “of every state of which its 3 owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 4 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Defendants take issue with the fact that Plaintiff’s Corporate 5 Disclosure Statement failed to list the states of which its owners/members are citizens. 6 Dkt. # 33 at 5. In response to Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff filed a revised Corporate 7 Disclosure Statement addressing this issue. Dkt. # 34. This late filing is a minor 8 procedural mistake which does not affect this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Neither 9 the Court nor the parties were prejudiced by this late filing. The revised Corporate 10 Disclosure Statement clears any ambiguity regarding complete diversity of the parties. 11 Plaintiffs are citizens of Massachusetts, and Defendants are citizens of Washington. 12 B. Amount in controversy. 13 Defendants facially attack Plaintiff’s complaint, arguing that the complaint fails to 14 plead facts establishing the amount in controversy. See Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 15 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In a facial attack, the challenger asserts that the allegations 16 contained in a complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction.”). 17 The amount-in-controversy requirement is generally determined by the amount 18 claimed in the complaint, and this amount controls if the complaint was made in good 19 faith. See St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288–89 (1938). 20 Nonetheless, a district court may be justified in dismissing the action where it appears to 21 a legal certainty that the actual claim is less than the jurisdictional amount. Lowdermilk v. 22 United States Bank Nat’l Assoc., 479 F.3d 994, 999 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, the surviving 23 claims seek injunctive relief and common law damages relating to misappropriation of 24 the “Allies” page on Facebook that promotes Plaintiff’s organization to non-members. 25 Dkt. # 26 at 16. The complaint specifically estimates the “loss” related to the 26 misappropriation of the Allies page to be $1,037.52. Dkt. # 26 at 16. This is far below the 27 required $75,000 to establish the amount in controversy. That Plaintiff also seeks 1 injunctive relief does not change this conclusion. See Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 2 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating that “the amount in controversy is measured by the 3 value of the object of the litigation” where the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief). 4 Nor do any other peripheral allegations nudge the complaint’s stated amount-in- 5 controversy into the realm of plausibility. Although the complaint seeks $100,000 in 6 statutory damages, Plaintiff’s statutory claims have already been dismissed. See Dkt. # 31 7 at 32. Same with Plaintiff’s common law claims alleging damages for misappropriation 8 of the “Chapter” page on Facebook. Id. Finally, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding its losses 9 for tortious interference with business relations are sparse. But in any event, the 10 cumulative value of Plaintiff’s lost business with Facebook does not exceed the 11 jurisdictional minimum. See Dkt. # 26 at 16. Nor has Plaintiff established that punitive 12 damages would be permitted under the applicable state law based on the conduct alleged. 13 See Davenport v. Mut. Ben. Health & Accident Ass’n, 325 F.2d 785, 787 (9th Cir. 1963). 14 For these reasons, the Court agrees with Defendants that the complaint fails to plead facts 15 establishing the amount in controversy and GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss. 16 V. CONCLUSION 17 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 18 Dkt. # 33. Because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s request for a 19 preliminary injunction is rendered moot. The Court DENIES the motion on that basis. 20 Dkt. # 42.

21 DATED this 6th day of January, 2023. 22 A 23 24 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 25 United States District Judge 26 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27