Cornell v. Fox News Network
| Decision Date | 06 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:19-cv-698 |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER LEE CORNELL, Plaintiff, v. FOX NEWS NETWORK, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
Litkovitz, M.J.
Plaintiff, an inmate confined at the Fairton Federal Correctional Institution in Fairton, New Jersey, brings this pro se civil action against media entities and a reporter, including defendants Fox News Network, Fox 19 News, Tricia Mackie, and "Any Subsidiary Company—WXIX News" for defamation. (Doc. 1). This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 18) and defendants Gray Media Group and Tricia Mackie's response in opposition (Doc. 19). This matter is also before the Court on defendants Gray Media Group and Tricia Mackie's motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) and defendant Fox News Network, LLC's ("FNN") motion to dismiss (Doc. 13).1
In response to defendants' motion to dismiss, plaintiff requests leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff states that "the proposed amended complaint sets forth addition[al] facts that adequately respond to the concerns raised in the motion." (Doc. 18 at 1).
In response, defendants argue that plaintiff's motion should be denied because his proposed amended complaint is futile. (Doc. 19 at 1). Defendants argue that the proposedamended complaint confirms that plaintiff's claims are time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations for defamation claims and that complete diversity is lacking in this case. (Id.).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) governs amendments to the pleadings. A complaint may be amended once as a matter of course within 21 days of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). If a plaintiff wishes to amend the complaint after the 21-day period has expired, he must obtain written consent of the opposing party or leave of the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
The granting or denial of a motion to amend pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) is within the discretion of the trial court. Leave to amend a complaint should be liberally granted. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962). "In deciding whether to grant a motion to amend, courts should consider undue delay in filing, lack of notice to the opposing party, bad faith by the moving party, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment." Brumbalough v. Camelot Care Ctrs., Inc., 427 F.3d 996, 1001 (6th Cir. 2005). The test for futility is whether the amended complaint could survive a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Rose v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 417, 421 (6th Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint should be denied as futile. The proposed amended complaint reveals that diversity jurisdiction of the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) is lacking. In order for diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(a) to lie, the citizenship of the plaintiff must be "diverse from the citizenship of each defendant" thereby ensuring "complete diversity." Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (citing State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523, 531 (1967)); see also Napletana v. Hillsdale College, 385 F.2d 871, 872 (6th Cir. 1967); Winningham v. North American Res. Corp., 809 F. Supp. 546, 551 (S.D. Ohio 1992). For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a person is a citizen of a state in which he isdomiciled. Walling v. Wagner, No. 3:14-cv-406, 2015 WL 400640, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 28, 2015) (citing Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989)). "[T]here is a rebuttable presumption that a prisoner retains his former domicile after incarceration," rather than acquiring a new domicile when he is incarcerated in a different state. Id. (quoting Johnson v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 26 F. App'x 386, 388 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Stifel v. Hopkins, 477 F.2d 1116, 1124 (6th Cir. 1973)). Here, while plaintiff is currently incarcerated in New Jersey, he alleges in the proposed amended complaint that he is and was a citizen of Hamilton County, Ohio. (Doc. 18-1 at ¶ 1). Plaintiff makes no allegations that he considers New Jersey to be his current domicile, or that he intends to remain in New Jersey after he is released from prison. Accordingly, the Court considers plaintiff to be a citizen of Ohio as he has not overcome the presumption that he maintains his pre-incarceration domicile of Ohio. See Walling, 2015 WL 400640, at *4. Because plaintiff is a citizen of Ohio, there is no complete diversity of citizenship since he alleges that defendants Tricia Mackie and Fox 19 Now are also Ohio citizens. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Therefore, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship over the state law claims plaintiff alleges in the proposed amended complaint.
Second, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the proposed amended complaint against the defendants. District courts have original federal question jurisdiction over cases "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In order to invoke the Court's federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, plaintiff must allege facts showing the cause of action involves an issue of federal law. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987). The proposed amended complaint alleges defamation claims against defendants in relation to articles published about plaintiff on March 7,2016 and July 7, 2016. (Doc. 18-1 at ¶¶ 9-15).2 The proposed amended complaint also alleges that defendants violated a Court order by contacting plaintiff for an interview in March 2015 without the express approval of his defense attorney and by publishing the contents of the interview "out of context." (Id. at ¶¶ 29-31). These factual allegations do not give rise to any federal statutory or constitutional provision that would invoke the Court's federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Because the proposed amended complaint fails to establish complete diversity of citizenship among the parties or a basis for federal question jurisdiction, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. Even if the Court had subject matter jurisdiction, plaintiff's claims are time-barred. Under Ohio law, defamation claims must be brought within one year of the publication. Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11(A). See also T.S. v. Plain Dealer, 954 N.E.2d 213, 214 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). The one-year statute of limitations also applies in cases involving allegations that would support both a defamation and false-light invasion of privacy claim. Murray v. Moyers, No. 2:14-cv-02334, 2015 WL 5626509, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 24, 2015). See also Stainbrook v. Ohio Sec'y of State, 88 N.E.2d 1257, 1265 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). The allegations in Counts One, Two, and Three of the proposed amended complaint stem from publications on March 7, 2016 and July 7, 2016. The allegations in Count Four stem from a March 5, 2015 jail interview with Fox 19 and Tricia Mackie, which plaintiff alleges was obtained in violation of a Court order and published "out of context and invaded [his] right toprivacy and showed him in a false light." (Doc. 18-1 at ¶ 31). Plaintiff did not file this action until August 2019. His defamation claims are time-barred by over three years, and his false light invasion of privacy claim is time-barred by over four years. For these reasons, it would be futile to allow plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 18) should be DENIED.
Defendants Gray Media Group and Tricia Mackie and defendant FNN move to dismiss plaintiff's claims for several reasons, including lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), and failure to state a claim for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Docs. 11, 13).3 "'Customarily a federal court first resolves doubts about its jurisdiction over the subject matter' of a case before proceeding to the personal jurisdiction inquiry." State of Ohio v. Ultracell Corp., No. 2:16-cv-187, 2017 WL 430731, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 30, 2017) (quoting Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 578 (1999)). The Court will therefore consider defendants' subject matter jurisdiction challenge first.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), a party may attack a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. There are generally two types of motions challenging subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). DLX, Inc. v. Kentucky, 381 F.3d 511, 516 (6th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Lumbar v. City of Ann Arbor, 913 F.3d 585 (6th Cir. 2019). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion can attack a party's claim of jurisdiction on its face or the motion can attack the factual basis for a claim of jurisdiction. Id. A facial attack questions thesufficiency of the pleading. Campbell v. Miller, 835 F. Supp. 2d 458, 463 (S.D. Ohio 2011) (citing Ohio Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 922 F.2d 320 (6th Cir. 1990)). When reviewing this type of challenge to the court's jurisdiction, the court must take the allegations in the complaint as true and construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. (citing United States v. A.D. Roe Co., Inc., 186 F.3d 717, 721-22 (6th Cir. 1999)).
When a factual challenge is made under Rule 12(b)(1), the court considers evidence to determine if jurisdiction exists. Id. at 463-64 (citing Nichols v. Muskingum Coll., 318 F.3d 674, 677 (6th Cir. 2003)). The trial court must weigh the conflicting evidence to make this determination. Id. (citing Gentek Bldg. Products, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co, 491 F.3d 320, 330 (6th Cir. 2007)). When a factual attack is made, the non-moving party bears the burden of proving that...
To continue reading
Request your trial