Boulger v. Woods, 306 F. Supp. 3d 985

Background

In March 2016 James Woods tweeted two photographs (one of Birgitt Peterson making a Nazi salute at a Trump rally, and one of Portia Boulger identified as a Bernie Sanders organizer) with the text: "So‑called #Trump 'Nazi' is a #BernieSanders agitator/operative?" The tweet was widely shared.
Woods later posted a follow-up tweet acknowledging followers said the two women were not the same person but did not delete the original tweet until counsel intervened; Boulger alleges she thereafter received harassment and threats.
Boulger sued Woods in March 2017 for defamation and false‑light invasion of privacy. Service on Woods was not completed within the court's extended deadline.
Woods filed an Answer asserting lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service, then filed a Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (arguing the tweet is nonactionable) and later moved to dismiss for insufficient service.
The court treated the second motion as a Rule 12(b)(5) dismissal request, found Woods had waived his service/personal‑jurisdiction defenses by litigating the merits (filing a merits Rule 12(c) motion), denied dismissal, and granted Woods judgment on the pleadings on both claims because the tweet was not an actionable factual assertion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Should the case be dismissed for insufficient service/lack of personal jurisdiction?	Boulger contends Woods intentionally evaded service; alternatively, Woods waived service defense by conducting himself so that dismissal should be denied.	Woods argues he preserved the service and personal‑jurisdiction defenses and the Rule 4(m) extension was still in effect when he moved under Rule 12(c), so he did not waive those defenses.	Court denied dismissal: Woods waived the defenses by voluntarily litigating merits (filing Rule 12(c) motion seeking merits relief), so Rule 12(b)(2)/(5) defenses forfeited.
2) Is Woods's tweet a false statement of fact actionable as defamation under Ohio law?	Boulger argues tweet, juxtaposed with photos and caption, asserts Boulger is the person giving the Nazi salute and so is a false factual allegation harming her reputation.	Woods argues the tweet is a question/invitation to readers, not a factual assertion, and thus nonactionable opinion/rhetorical question.	Court granted judgment for Woods: under totality‑of‑circumstances and Ohio's innocent‑construction rule tweet reasonably read as a question/inquiry and not a verifiable factual assertion, so not actionable.
3) Is the false‑light invasion of privacy claim viable?	Boulger contends the tweet placed her in a highly offensive false light and was made with recklessness as to falsity.	Woods argues false‑light requires a false factual (verifiable) statement; a question is not susceptible to truth/falsity and so cannot sustain false‑light.	Court granted judgment for Woods: false‑light fails because tweet is non‑verifiable question/opinion and therefore not a false factual publicity.

Key Cases Cited

Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, 526 U.S. 344 (1999) (proper service prerequisite to personal jurisdiction)
Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999) (no adjudication without personal jurisdiction)
King v. Taylor, 694 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. 2012) (procedural treatment of service defenses; prematurity of service challenge)
Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654 (1996) (Rule 4(m) timing and courts’ discretion to allow additional service time)
Bentkowski v. Scene Magazine, 637 F.3d 689 (6th Cir. 2011) (framework for determining whether statement is fact or opinion)
Wampler v. Higgins, 93 Ohio St.3d 111, 752 N.E.2d 962 (Ohio 2001) (verifiability and context factors for defamation)
Abbas v. Foreign Policy Grp., LLC, 783 F.3d 1328 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (questions typically nonactionable; caution about chilling speech)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (Rule 12 standard for plausibility)