Blank v. John Doe
4:18-cv-00780
| E.D. Mo. | Aug 13, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Michael H. Blank, a Missouri resident, filed a libel suit against two unnamed individuals identified as John Doe and Jane Doe based on a 2016 blog post alleging impotence, cross-dressing, and harassment of women.
- The blog (Avenger Social / Avenger News) is hosted by WordPress (Automattic), but Automattic/WordPress and the blogs themselves are not named as defendants.
- Plaintiff seeks $10,000 in actual damages and $500,000 in punitive damages, plus an order directing disclosure of the Doe defendants’ identities, removal of the post, and a printed retraction.
- Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis; the Court granted IFP after reviewing financial information.
- The complaint asserts federal subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, but the complaint gives no citizenship or contact information for the Doe defendants.
- The Court sua sponte raised concern that diversity jurisdiction is not established and ordered plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court has subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity | Blank alleges diversity jurisdiction and states damages that could exceed federal threshold | No facts provided to show defendants’ citizenship; Doe defendants unidentified | Court: diversity not established because citizenship of Doe defendants is unknown; plaintiff ordered to show cause why case should not be dismissed |
| Whether Doe defendants may be sued in federal diversity action without establishing their citizenship | Blank uses John/Jane Doe placeholders and requests court-ordered disclosure | Fictitious parties cannot be used to satisfy diversity because plaintiff bears burden to prove complete diversity | Court: cites precedent requiring plaintiff to establish diverse citizenship of fictitious defendants; Doe defendants inadequate for diversity jurisdiction |
| Whether plaintiff may proceed IFP | Blank submits financial affidavit requesting waiver of filing fee | No opposition; court reviews filings | Court: granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis |
Key Cases Cited
- Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534 (Sup. Ct.) (federal courts have limited, statutory jurisdiction)
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (Sup. Ct.) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (Sup. Ct.) (party asserting diversity jurisdiction bears burden to establish citizenship)
- Lee v. Airgas Mid-South, Inc., 793 F.3d 894 (8th Cir.) (on challenge, plaintiff must establish diverse citizenship of fictitious defendants)
- OnePoint Solutions, LLC v. Borchert, 486 F.3d 342 (8th Cir.) (requirement of complete diversity of citizenship)
- Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Universal Crop Prof. All., LLC, 620 F.3d 926 (8th Cir.) (good-faith allegation of jurisdictional amount suffices unless shown to a legal certainty)