Jones v. St. Augustine High Sch., Inc.

• Decision Date: 16 February 2022
• Docket Number: 2021-CA-0474, NO. 2021-CA-0475
• Citation: 336 So.3d 470
• Parties: Nathaniel JONES v. ST. AUGUSTINE HIGH SCHOOL, INC., Kenneth St. Charles, American Broadcasting Company d/b/a ABC News, Roland Sebastian Martin, Roland Martin Unlimited and Interactive One, LLC. Nathaniel Jones v. St. Augustine High School, Inc., Kenneth St. Charles, American Broadcasting Company d/b/a ABC News, Roland Sebastian Martin, Roland Martin Unlimited and Interactive One, LLC.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

336 So.3d 470

Nathaniel JONES

v.ST. AUGUSTINE HIGH SCHOOL, INC., Kenneth St. Charles, American Broadcasting Company d/b/a ABC News, Roland Sebastian Martin, Roland Martin Unlimited and Interactive One, LLC.

Nathaniel Jones

v.St. Augustine High School, Inc., Kenneth St. Charles, American Broadcasting Company d/b/a ABC News, Roland Sebastian Martin, Roland Martin Unlimited and Interactive One, LLC.

NO. 2021-CA-0474

NO. 2021-CA-0475

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

FEBRUARY 16, 2022

Willie M. Zanders, Sr., ATTORNEY AT LAW, 221 Briarhaven Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70810, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Mary Ellen Roy, Dan Zimmerman, PHELPS DUNBAR LLP, 365 Canal Street, 20^th Floor, New Orleans, LA 70130, Nathan Siegel, pro hoc vice, DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, 1301 K Street, NW, Suite 500 East, Washington, DC 20005, Daniel Thomas Plunkett, MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD, PLLC, 601 Poydras Street, 12^th Floor, New Orleans, LA 70130, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES

(Court composed of Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase, Judge Pro Tempore Lynn M. Luker)

Nathaniel Jones (hereinafter "Mr. Jones") seeks review of the trial court's May 5, 2021 judgment sustaining exceptions of lack of jurisdiction and no cause of action filed by Interactive One LLC (hereinafter "Interactive One"). Mr. Jones also seeks review of the trial court's May 11, 2021 judgment granting a special motion to strike and exception of no cause of action filed by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (hereinafter "ABC News"). After consideration of the record before this Court, and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court's May 5, 2021 judgment granting Interactive One's exception of lack of jurisdiction, reverse the trial court's May 11, 2021 judgment granting ABC News’ special motion to strike and exception of no cause of action, and remand the matter for further proceedings.

Facts and Procedural History

Mr. Jones was employed by St. Augustine High School as a teacher and head football coach. On October 4, 2019, a video was uploaded to social media displaying football players and an assistant coach in the locker room, engaging in a "pre-game chant" using a racial slur. Mr. Jones was not in the locker room during the chant. Thereafter, St. Augustine High School terminated Mr. Jones. On October 9, 2019, Interactive One published an online article entitled "Black Football Coach Fired For His Team Using [the n-word] At Historically Black School." Also, on the same date, ABC News published a separate online article entitled "High school football coach fired after using racial slur in pre-game chant."

On September 22, 2020, Mr. Jones filed a petition for damages for breach of employment contract and defamation of character. He named as defendants Interactive One, ABC News, St. Augustine High School, Inc., Kenneth St. Charles, Roland Martin Unfiltered Productions, and Roland Sebastian Martin. In response to plaintiff's petition, Interactive One filed a declinatory exception of lack of jurisdiction and a peremptory exception of no cause of action. ABC News likewise filed responsive pleadings, which included a special motion to strike and peremptory exception of no cause of action. The exceptions and special motion to strike were heard by the trial court on April 8, 2021. The trial court granted Interactive One's exceptions of lack of jurisdiction and no cause of action by judgment dated May 5, 2021. Several days later, the trial court issued a judgment, on May 11, 2021, granting ABC News’ special motion to strike and sustaining its exception of no cause of action. This appeal followed.

Discussion

In this consolidated appeal¹ , Mr. Jones raises eight assignments of error which can be summarized into the following three categories: (1) Interactive One's exception of lack of personal jurisdiction; (2) ABC News’ special motion to strike and exception of no cause of action; and (3) dismissal of remaining claims. We will discuss each in turn.

Applicable Standard of Review

This Court conducts a de novo analysis of a trial court's finding regarding personal jurisdiction. Loeb v. Vergara , 2020-0261, p. 78 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/27/21), 313 So.3d 346, 392, writ denied , 2021-00314 (La. 4/20/21), 313 So.3d 1257. We likewise apply the de novo standard of review to a special motion to strike and a trial court's judgment maintaining an exception of no cause of action. Melius v. Keiffer , 2007-0189, p. 2 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/12/08), 980 So.2d 167, 170 ; St. Pierre v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. , 2012-0545, p. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/24/12), 102 So.3d 1003, 1009.

Interactive One's Exception of Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Mr. Jones asserts that the trial court erred in granting Interactive One's exception of lack of personal jurisdiction. He maintains that millions of people in the United States read Interactive One's online article, including people in Louisiana, and that he suffered irreparable harm because of the publishing of the online article. According to Mr. Jones, these actions establish sufficient contacts with the state to invoke the personal jurisdiction of Louisiana courts. Conversely, Interactive One contends that it has insufficient minimum contacts with Louisiana to establish the state's exercise of personal jurisdiction.

Personal jurisdiction over non-residents is set forth in La. R.S. 13: 3201, which provides, in pertinent part:

A. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non[-]resident, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from any one of the following activities performed by the non[-]resident:

(1) Transacting any business in this state.

(2) Contracting to supply services or things in this state.

(3) Causing injury or damage by an offense or quasi offense committed through an act or omission in this state.

(4) Causing injury or damage in this state by an offense or quasi offense committed through an act or omission outside of this state if he regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in this state.

***

B. In addition to the provisions of Subsection A, a court of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non[-]resident on any basis consistent with the constitution of this state and of the Constitution of the United States.

Louisiana's authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over non-residents is limited by the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See U.S. Const. Amend. 14 and La. R.S. 13:3201. "There are two prongs of the due process test that must be satisfied before personal jurisdiction can be exercised. First, the non[-]resident defendant must have ‘minimum contacts’ with the forum state; and second, the exercise of personal jurisdiction in the forum state must not violate the basic notions of ‘fair play and substantial justice.’ When applying the test the quality and nature of the activity must be considered." BioClin, BV v. MultiGyn USA, LLC , 2012-0962, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/5/13), 129 So.3d 633, 637 (internal citations omitted). The two-prong "minimum contacts" and "fair play" analysis is applicable to both general and specific jurisdiction. Dahmes v. Champagne Elevators, Inc. , 2003-0807, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/3/04), 869 So.2d 904, 908.

In determining "minimum contacts," personal jurisdiction is divided into two categories: general and specific. Ohle v. Uhalt , 2016-0569, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/1/17), 213 So.3d 1, 6. "General jurisdiction applies when the defendant's contacts with the state are unrelated to the lawsuit." Swoboda v. Hero Decks , 2009-1303, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/31/10), 36 So.3d 994, 997. "General jurisdiction arises only when the defendant has engaged in ‘continuous and systematic general business contacts’ with the forum state." Babcock & Wilcox v. Babcock Mexico , 597 So.2d 110, 112 (La.App. 4 Cir.1992). Conversely, "[s]pecific jurisdiction is exercised when the cause of action is related to or arises out of the defendant's contact with the state." Id . "Where a forum seeks to assert specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant who has not consented to suit there, the requirement of meaningful contacts is satisfied if the defendant has purposefully directed his activities at residents of the forum, and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities." de Reyes v. Marine Mgmt. & Consulting, Ltd. , 586 So.2d 103, 106 (La.1991) (internal citations omitted).

Interactive One maintains that it did not have continuous and systematic contact with the state of Louisiana sufficient to establish general jurisdiction. It further argues that specific jurisdiction cannot be asserted because Interactive One's online article was not purposefully directed to Louisiana residents. Thus, we must determine whether the online article published by Interactive One created sufficient minimum contacts to establish either general or specific personal jurisdiction.

Louisiana courts have consistently relied on Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. , 952 F.Supp. 1119, 1124 (W.D.Pa.1997) for guidance on an internet site's connection to a forum state. In BioClin, BV v. MultiGyn USA, LLC , we explained:

In Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. , 952 F.Supp. 1119, 1124 (W.D.Pa.1997), the court employed a "sliding scale" approach to determine whether a website has minimum contacts with a forum state sufficient to invoke personal jurisdiction. The sliding scale categorizes the websites activities as passive or interactive. Id . A passive website that does little more than make information available to those who are interested in it does not provide the minimum contacts that warrant the exercise of personal jurisdiction. Id . (citing Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King , 937 F.Supp. 295 (S.D.N.Y.1996) ). On the other end of the spectrum is the interactive website where business is clearly done

...