Zimmerman v. Buttigieg

• Decision Date: 23 February 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 8:20-cv-1077-CEH-CPT
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
• Parties: George ZIMMERMAN, Plaintiff, v. Pete BUTTIGIEG and Elizabeth Warren, Defendants.

521 F.Supp.3d 1197

George ZIMMERMAN, Plaintiff,

v.Pete BUTTIGIEG and Elizabeth Warren, Defendants.

Case No. 8:20-cv-1077-CEH-CPT

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division.

Signed February 23, 2021

Craig Alan Sonner, Craig A. Sonner, PA, Oviedo, FL, Larry Elliot Klayman, Larry Klayman, Attorney at Law, Boca Raton, FL, for Plaintiff.

Marc Erik Elias, Pro Hac Vice, Perkins Coie, LLP, Washington, DC, William B. Stafford, Pro Hac Vice, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA, Frederick S. Wermuth, King, Blackwell, Zehnder & Wermuth, PA, Orlando, FL, for Defendants.

ORDER

Charlene Edwards Honeywell, United States District Judge

This matter comes before the Court upon the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 17], Plaintiff's Opposition [Doc. 20], and Defendants’ Reply [Doc. 27]. According to Defendants, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction in this case and Plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. [Doc. 17]. Having considered the motion and being fully advised in the premises, the Court will grant, without prejudice, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.

I. BACKGROUND¹

On February 26, 2012, twenty-nine year-old George Zimmerman discharged a single shot to stop seventeen year-old Trayvon Martin from assaulting him, following an incident between the two at the Retreat at Twin Lakes townhome community in Sanford, Florida where Zimmerman lived and was a member of the neighborhood watch. [Doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 10, 11, 14]. Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder and acquitted by a jury on July 13, 2013. Id. ¶¶ 16, 17. He and his family have been the target of death threats ever since. Id. ¶ 17. Due to the massive publicity after the shooting, the nationwide protests demanding his arrest without cause, the subsequent 2013 trial and his acquittal of all charges, and the acts of protest and violence that continue to this day in the name of Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman alleges that his name is 100% synonymous with Trayvon Martin and the incident that resulted in Martin's death. Id. ¶ 21.

The actions giving rise to this lawsuit occurred on February 5, 2020. Id. ¶¶ 22, 23. That day, defendant Pete Buttigieg made the following tweet:

Id. ¶¶ 8, 22; p. 27. Buttigieg is an American politician and was a 2020 candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States of America. Id. ¶ 5. He allegedly had 1,600,000 followers on the social media platform, Twitter, and tweeted multiple times per day in order to build political support—among other things. Id. Buttigieg's tweet implied that Trayvon Martin's death was a result of "white supremacy, gun violence, prejudice, and fear ," all of which the public would understand as referring only to George Zimmerman, who is known to have caused Trayvon Martin's death by shooting him, even though Buttigieg knew that the 2013 trial jury acquitted Zimmerman of all charges. Id. ¶ 22. This disparaged Zimmerman and further subjected him to hate. Id. In only three days, the tweet received 42,000 likes, 13,300 replies, and 6,600 retweets as well as national media coverage, including in the state of Florida—which is the third largest state and crucial to win the 2020 presidential Democratic primary and general presidential election. Id. ¶¶ 5, 8.

Elizabeth Warren, a nationally known public figure and 2020 candidate for the Democratic party nomination for President of the United States, also tweeted about Trayvon Martin that day. Id. ¶¶ 6, 9, 23. She tweeted the following statement to her 3,600,000 followers on Twitter:

Id. ¶ 9, 23; p. 29. In only three days, the tweet received 7,300 likes and 1,000 retweets, as well as national media coverage, including in the state of Florida. Id. ¶ 9. Like Buttigieg, Warren was very knowledgeable of the facts surrounding the 2012 incident in which Trayvon Martin died and that Zimmerman's name was synonymous with that incident. Id. ¶ 23. The tweet was defamatory because it characterized Martin's death as the result of gun violence, even though Warren was aware that Zimmerman's act was one of self-defense and that he was acquitted of all charges based on the evidence. Id.

Both Buttigieg and Warren, in sending the respective tweets, acted with actual malice towards Zimmerman, because—among other things—they knew of his acquittal. Id. ¶¶ 25-33. According to Zimmerman, they had a preconceived plan to discredit and destroy him as part of their political agenda to garner votes in the black community before the 2020 election. Id. ¶ 33. In fact, Buttigieg had expressed concern over the well-documented lack of electoral support for his candidacy among African American voters in polling and Warren also lacked the support of African American voters, which she was seeking. Id. ¶¶ 1, 5-6.

Zimmerman filed this action against Buttigieg and Warren² asserting three claims—general defamation, defamation by implication, and defamation per se—against both. Id. Defendants, moving jointly, seek dismissal of the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. [Doc. 17]. Among other things, they contend that the tweets contain no statement against Zimmerman personally, are pure opinion and that Zimmerman has not plausibly alleged malice. Id. at p. 3. Zimmerman, however, argues that personal jurisdiction exists because the tweets were accessible in Florida. [Doc. 20 at p. 3]. Additionally, he argues that it is clear that the tweets were of and concerning him as it is universally known that he shot Trayvon Martin. Id. at p. 2. In reply, Buttigieg and Warren argue that the accessibility of tweets in Florida does not satisfy the long-arm statute nor comport with the requirements of due process. [Doc. 27 at p. 2]. They also raise various arguments as to the sufficiency of the allegations to plausibly state a claim for relief, including that the tweets do not concern Zimmerman's role in Martin's death. Id. at p. 4.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a complaint to include, among other things, "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Similarly, "[a] party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances." Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Complaints that violate either of these rules are often referred to as "shotgun pleadings." Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Office , 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015). When faced with a shotgun pleading, a court should strike the complaint and instruct the plaintiff to file a more definite statement. See Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol. , 516 F.3d 955, 984 (11th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases), abrogated on other grounds by Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) sets forth additional grounds on which a court may dismiss an action. Pursuant to that rule, a court may dismiss an action if, among other reasons, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant(s) or if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), (6).

Personal jurisdiction "concern[s] the extent of a court's power over the parties and the fairness of requiring a party to defend itself in a foreign forum." Delong Equip. Co. v. Washington Mills Abrasive Co. , 840 F.2d 843, 857 (11th Cir. 1988). It "represents a restriction on judicial power ... as a matter of individual liberty." Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co. , 526 U.S. 574, 584, 119 S. Ct. 1563, 1570, 143 L.Ed. 2d 760 (1999) (quoting Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492, (1982) ). "In the context of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in which no evidentiary hearing is held, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of jurisdiction over the movant, non-resident defendant." Morris v. SSE, Inc. , 843 F.2d 489, 492 (11th Cir. 1988). A two-step analysis is required; the court must first determine whether the exercise of jurisdiction is appropriate under the forum state's long-arm statute and then examine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Mut. Serv. Ins. Co. v. Frit Indus., Inc. , 358 F.3d 1312, 1319 (11th Cir. 2004). A plaintiff seeking to subject a nonresident defendant to jurisdiction of the court through the long-arm statute must do more than allege facts that show a possibility of jurisdiction." Lawson Cattle & Equip., Inc. v. Pasture Renovators LLC , 139 F. App'x 140, 142 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Jet Charter Serv., Inc. v. Koeck, 907 F.2d 1110, 1112 (11th Cir. 1990) ). However, a defendant contesting the complaint's allegations concerning jurisdiction must present affidavits in support of his position. Id. (quoting Acquadro v. Bergeron, 851 So.2d 665, 671 (Fla. 2003) ). "The district court must construe the allegations in the complaint as true, to the extent they are uncontroverted by defendant's affidavits or deposition testimony." Morris , 843 F.2d at 492.

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the allegations in the complaint must be accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Michel v. NYP Holdings, Inc. , 816 F.3d 686, 694 (11th Cir. 2016). It is well established that "[a] complaint must not be dismissed unless it is shown that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of this claim, which would entitle him to relief." Jackam v. Hosp. Corp. of Am. Mideast , 800 F.2d 1577, 1579 (11th Cir. 1986). To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a pleading must include a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 677–78, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (20...