Williams v. Roc Nation, LLC

• Decision Date: 21 October 2020
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-03387
• Parties: SAQUETA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. ROC NATION, LLC, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

SAQUETA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. ROC NATION, LLC, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-03387

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

October 21, 2020

MEMORANDUM GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case involves claims by Saqueta Williams ("Plaintiff") against Roc Nation, LLC; Robert Rihmeek Williams ("Meek Mill"); Shawn Corey Carter; Amazon.com, Inc.; and The Intellectual Property Corporation (collectively, "Defendants") for defamation, presentation of false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy.

All Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim. Defendants Roc Nation, Meek Mill, and Shawn Corey Carter also move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the defamation and false light claims and will grant without prejudice Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy claims.

II. BACKGROUND¹

Plaintiff's claims arise from Free Meek, a five-part documentary series created, produced, and published by Defendants.² The 2019 series explores rapper Meek Mill's experience with the Philadelphia criminal justice system. During the fourth episode, entitled Filthadelphia, investigative reporter Paul Solotaroff discusses the Philadelphia District Attorney's "Do Not Call List," which identifies police officers with histories of arrests, disciplinary actions, or providing false testimony. According to the Complaint, the District Attorney directed prosecutors not to call some of the officers on the list as witnesses in criminal prosecutions. Compl. ¶ 32, ECF No. 1.

Solotaroff states: "Now there is a new District Attorney in town, and just the last couple of months we have been learningfrom the District Attorney's Office about a list of dirty and dishonest cops." Id. ¶ 48. Attorney Bradley Bridge, a well-known attorney for the Defender Association of Philadelphia, also provides commentary on the "Do Not Call List," stating, "The DA's Office generated a specific list that has 66 names of police officers on it. There have been findings by the police department that the officers have lied to internal affairs, to other police officers, or in court." Id. ¶ 49.

During Bridge's commentary, an image of Plaintiff is briefly displayed on the screen. Plaintiff, who served as a Philadelphia police officer from 2010 until 2017, appeared on the "Do Not Call List" because she had previously been arrested and charged with assault, possession of an instrument of crime, and recklessly endangering another person after drawing her firearm during an off-duty confrontation. In February 2019, a jury acquitted Plaintiff of all charges stemming from the off-duty incident. According to Plaintiff, neither the Philadelphia Police Department nor the Office of the Philadelphia District Attorney ever found that she "lied to internal affairs, to other police officers, or in court." Id.

Plaintiff alleges that juxtaposing her image with Bridge's comments and with photographs of officers placed on the "Do Not Call List" as a result of their dishonest conduct communicates the false implication that she is a "dirty, corrupt, immoral,and dishonest" police officer who lied to internal affairs, to other officers, and/or in court. Id. ¶ 51. Her claims in the instant action arise from this display of her image.³

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A party may move to dismiss a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). In deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, "a court is required to accept the plaintiff's allegations as true, and is to construe disputed facts in favor of the plaintiff." Metcalfe v. Renaissance Marine, Inc., 566 F.3d 324, 330 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446, 457 (3d Cir. 2003)).

A party may also move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). When reviewing such a motion, the Court is "required to accept as true all allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from [the allegations] after construing them in the light most favorable to the non-movant." Conard v. Pa. State Police, 902 F.3d 178, 182 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 20F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994)). However, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a complaint must "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Personal Jurisdiction

Defendants do not dispute that the Court has personal jurisdiction over Amazon.com and The Intellectual Property Corporation. However, Defendants Roc Nation, Shawn Corey Carter, and Meek Mill argue the Court has neither general nor specific jurisdiction over them. Plaintiff contends the Court has both. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts supporting the Court's exercise of specific jurisdiction over the Defendants in question.

A plaintiff bears "[t]he burden of demonstrating the facts that establish personal jurisdiction." Metcalfe v. RenaissanceMarine, Inc., 566 F.3d 324, 330 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Pinker v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 368 (3d Cir. 2002)). If a defendant raises a jurisdictional defense, "the plaintiff must 'prov[e] by affidavits or other competent evidence that jurisdiction is proper.'" Id. (quoting Dayhoff Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 86 F.3d 1287, 1302 (3d Cir. 1996)). If the district court does not hold an evidentiary hearing, a plaintiff "need only establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction." Id. (quoting O'Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., 496 F.3d 312, 316 (3d Cir. 2007)).

A federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant on two bases: (1) general jurisdiction and (2) specific jurisdiction. General jurisdiction exists where a defendant's contacts with the forum "are so 'continuous and systematic' as to render them essentially at home in the forum State." Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 127 (2014) (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)). Where general jurisdiction is present, a court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant "even if the plaintiff's cause of action arises from the defendant's non-forum related activities." Remick v. Manfredy, 238 F.3d 248, 255 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing Vetrotex Certainteed Corp. v. Consol. Fiber Glass Prod. Co., 75 F.3d 147, 151 n.3 (3d Cir. 1996)).

In contrast, specific jurisdiction "is present only if the plaintiff's cause of action arises out of a defendant's forum-related activities, such that the defendant 'should reasonably anticipate being haled into court' in that forum." Id. (quoting Vetrotex, 75 F.3d at 151) (internal quotation marks omitted). Consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, courts may exercise specific jurisdiction only over defendants with "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)). Pennsylvania's long-arm statute extends personal jurisdiction "to the fullest extent allowed under the Constitution of the United States." 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(b).

Where—as here—a plaintiff claims a non-resident defendant committed an intentional tort, a court may exercise specific jurisdiction if: (1) the defendant "committed an intentional tort"; (2) the plaintiff "felt the brunt of the harm caused by that tort in the forum, such that the forum can be said to be the focal point of the harm suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the tort"; and (3) the defendant "expressly aimed his tortious conduct at the forum, such that the forum can be said to be the focal point of the tortious activity." IMO Indus.,Inc. v. Kiekert AG, 155 F.3d 254, 256 (3d Cir. 1998) (applying Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984)).

Plaintiff easily satisfies the first two requirements. First, she sufficiently alleges Defendants committed the intentional torts of defamation and false light. See infra Sections IV.B.1-2. Second, Plaintiff is domiciled in Pennsylvania, and the communication at issue pertains to her role as a Philadelphia police officer. Plaintiff plausibly alleges she suffered the brunt of the alleged harm in the forum state.

Defendants Roc Nation, Shawn Corey Carter, and Meek Mill contend Plaintiff cannot satisfy the final requirement—i.e., that they "expressly aimed" the tortious conduct at the forum—because Amazon.com distributes Free Meek to a global audience and the series does not evince an intent to interact with the forum. This argument is unpersuasive. Defendants' documentary is based on Meek Mill's experience in Philadelphia. Defendants filmed the documentary largely in and around the city, and the series contains multiple interviews with Philadelphia residents. By Defendants' own admission, the documentary seeks to spotlight "how Philadelphia police, prosecutors, and courts failed to serve the ends of justice in the case of Meek Mill, who was arrested in Philadelphia as a teenager." Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss 1, ECF No. 19-1. The allegedly tortious activity concerns thePhiladelphia District Attorney's "Do Not Call List" and Plaintiff's role as...