The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Lamar Media Corp.
| Decision Date | 06 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 5:22-CV-05033 |
| Parties | THE SATANTIC TEMPLE, INC. PLAINTIFF v. LAMAR MEDIA CORP.; LAMAR ADVANTAGE GP COMPANY, LLC; and LAMAR ADVANTAGE HOLDING COMPANY DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas |
Plaintiff The Satanic Temple (“TST”) sues Defendants Lamar Media Corporation,[1]Lamar Advantage GP Company, LLC, and Lamar Advantage Holding Company (collectively “Defendants”) for religious discrimination pursuant to the Arkansas Civil Rights Act (“ACRA”), § 16-123-107(a)(3), and breach of contract. Lamar moves to dismiss, arguing this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, proper venue, and personal jurisdiction.
For the below reasons, the Court finds it may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute, and venue is proper. It further concludes it may assert personal jurisdiction over Lamar Advantage GP Company, LLC and Lamar Advantage Holding Company-but not Lamar Media Corp. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion as to Lamar Advantage GP Company, LLC and Lamar Advantage Holding Company, and GRANTS the Motion as to Lamar Media Corp. due to lack of personal jurisdiction.[2]
I. BACKGROUND
According to the complaint,[3] TST is a religious organization in the “nontheistic branch of Satanism.” (Doc. 3, p. 8). Adherents “venerate[] (but do[] not worship) the biblical adversary as a promethean icon against tyranny.” Id. at p. 2. TST practices the “Satanic Abortion Ritual,” described as the “ceremonious casting off of guilt, doubt, and mental discomfort that the member may be experiencing in connection with their election to abort the pregnancy.” Id. at p. 10. According to TST, this ritual reflects the religion's core tenets, particularly its commitment to bodily autonomy and the idea that scientific understanding should guide one's beliefs. Id. at p. 3.
Defendants own and operate billboards located across the country, which they rent for use as advertising space. Defendant Lamar Advantage GP Company, LLC is a Delaware entity operating primarily in Indiana (“Lamar-Indiana”). Defendant Lamar Advantage Holding Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Arkansas (“Lamar-Arkansas”). Lamar Advertising Company (“Lamar-HQ”), a publicly traded Delaware corporation headquartered in Louisiana, wholly owns both Lamar-Indiana and Lamar-Arkansas, albeit through several layers of other wholly owned subsidiaries.[4] Lamar-HQ also wholly owns Defendant Lamar Media Corp. See Id. at pp. 3-5; Docs. 10-1, 12, 13, 14.
TST engaged a marketing firm, SeedX, to grow public awareness about the abortion ritual. On September 2, 2020, SeedX CEO Jacqueline Basulto spoke with Lamar-Indiana Senior Account Executive Tom Hill about renting eight billboards in Arkansas and Indiana. Location was key, Basulto told Hill, because TST wanted its advertisements placed near “fake abortion clinics.”[5] (Doc. 3, p. 13). On September 15, 2020 they executed a contract. For $16,387, TST would have its content displayed on eight billboards, four located in Arkansas and four in Indiana, between September 28 and October 25, 2020.
When Lamar-Arkansas heard the news that morning, they were not pleased. See Doc. 3, p. 18. Whit Weeks, General Manager of Lamar-Arkansas's Fayetteville office, told his staff that he was “embarrassed” Lamar would be working with TST. See Doc. 3-7. Tom Gibbens, General Manager of Lamar-Arkansas's Little Rock office, emailed Lamar-HQ's Corporate Vice President of Governmental Relations Hal Kilshaw: (Doc. 3, p. 18). The contract, per paragraph 6, “reserve[d] [to Lamar] the right to determine if copy and design are in good taste and within the moral standards of the individual communities in which it is to be displayed” and allowed Lamar to “reject or remove copy” that failed to comply. (Doc. 3-1, p. 2). Gibbens sent the email after the contract had been signed but before Lamar received the design copy TST intended to use in its campaign.
Gibbens received TST's content later that morning-still September 15-which he forwarded to Kilshaw. Lamar-Indiana also forwarded the content to Kilshaw for his review. About an hour later, Kilshaw replied to both Lamar-Arkansas and Lamar-Indiana, stating: “All of these are misleading and offensive so no on all of them.” (Doc. 3-9, p. 1).
On September 21, 2020, Hill (of Lamar-Indiana) told Basulto (SeedX) that Lamar would not display TST's content. See Doc. 3, p. 21. Basulto requested guidance about how to resolve the objection but received no insight. See Id. at pp. 21 & 28. On September 25, Jason Graham canceled the contract, citing paragraph 6. See Id. at p. 29. Mr. Graham is a “Lamar General Manager” and Vice President of Lamar-Indiana. See Doc. 3-1, p. 2; Doc. 3-9, p. 2.
TST calls foul. It contends Defendants' proffered justification is merely pretext for religious animus. TST alleges Defendants' conduct violates ACRA and constitutes a breach of contract, and seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees.
II. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Defendants argue the Court must dismiss TST's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) because the Complaint does not plausibly allege the necessary minimum amount in controversy to establish diversity jurisdiction.
Federal diversity jurisdiction requires the parties to be citizens of different states and the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). While TST's Complaint alleges damages in excess of $75,000, see Doc. 3, p. 1, Defendants argue that such a recovery is impossible as a matter of law.[6] “If the defendant challenges the plaintiff's allegations of the amount in controversy, then the plaintiff must establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Peterson v. The Travelers Indem. Co., 867 F.3d 992, 995 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Kopp v. Kopp, 280 F.3d 883, 884-85 (8th Cir. 2002)).
A complaint that alleges “the jurisdictional amount in good faith will be dismissed only if it appears to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount.” Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vein Ctrs. for Excellence, Inc., 912 F.3d 1076, 108081 (8th Cir. 2019) (quotation marks and alteration omitted). “The legal certainty standard is met where the legal impossibility of recovery is so certain as virtually to negative the plaintiff's good faith in asserting the claim.” Peterson, 867 F.3d at 995 (quotations and brackets omitted) (quoting Schubert v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 649 F.3d 817, 822 (8th Cir. 2011)).
Arguably, however, the amount in controversy may depend on whether Arkansas's or Indiana's substantive law governs TST's claims. Accordingly, the Court first conducts a choice-of-law analysis before addressing Defendants' challenge to diversity jurisdiction.
Defendants argue Indiana law controls, and because Indiana law does not provide for attorney's fees or punitive damages on any of TST's claims, the amount in controversy falls well short of the jurisdictional minimum. According to Defendants, the amount in controversy is-at best-the $16,387 contracted value of the billboard advertising. The Court disagrees. The Court concludes that Arkansas law governs both of TST's claims, which means TST has placed in controversy an aggregate sum that may include compensatory damages, attorney's fees, and punitive damages.
In a diversity case, federal courts apply the choice-of-law principles of the state in which the court sits. See Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Found., 142 S.Ct. 1502, 1509 (2022) (); Schwan's Sales Enters., Inc. v. SIG Pack, Inc., 476 F.3d 594, 595 (8th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, Arkansas law governs the choice-of-law analysis.
Arkansas choice-of-law analysis depends on the type of claim involved. See Shelby Cnty. Health Care Corp., v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 855 F.3d 836, 841 (8th Cir. 2017). If the dispute sounds in contract, the court must identify which state has the “most significant relationship to the issue at hand.” Crisler v. Unum Ins. Co. of Am., 366 Ark. 130, 133 (2006) (citing Ducharme v. Ducharme, 316 Ark. 482 (1994)). If the dispute instead sounds in tort, the court considers the following:
[F]irst which State has the most significant relationship to the action and the parties, and then . . . the Leflar factors: (1) predictability of results, (2) maintenance of interstate and international order, (3) simplification of the judicial task, (4) advancement of the forum's governmental interests, and (5) application of the better rule of law.
Shelby Cnty. Health Care Corp., 855 F.3d at 842.
Importantly, though, “before entangling itself in messy issues of conflict of laws a court ought to satisfy itself that there actually is a difference between the relevant laws of the different states.” Phillips v. Marist Soc. of Wash. Province, 80 F.3d 274, 276 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting Barron v. Ford Motor Co. of Can., Ltd., 965 F.2d 195, 197 (7th Cir. 1992)). In other words, absent a conflict between relevant legal principles, a court need not conduct a full-blown choice-of-law analysis. See Leonards v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 279 F.3d 611, 612 (8th Cir. 2002).
Below, the Court addresses, first, TST's religious discrimination claim, and, second, TST's breach of contract claim.[7]
The Court finds that a conflict exists between Arkansas and Indiana...
To continue reading
Request your trial