Doe v. Bonnell, 1:25-cv-20757

Background:

Plaintiff (Jane Doe) alleges Defendant Bonnell wrongfully disseminated a sexually explicit video (the Video) of Plaintiff; dispute centers on when and to whom he shared it.
Plaintiff invokes federal question jurisdiction under the Criminalizing the Distribution of Intimate Images (CARDII) statute (15 U.S.C. § 6851), which took effect Oct. 1, 2022.
Defendant contends the pertinent dissemination occurred in April 2022 (based on Discord screenshots and time‑zone formatting) so CARDII does not apply; he also says he only sent the Video to "Rose" in April 2022.
Plaintiff moved for leave to amend the complaint to allege broader, continuing dissemination (via a Google Drive link) that persisted after CARDII took effect and to rely on a witness ("Abbymc") who declared the Video was transmitted “on or about” Nov. 3, 2023.
The parties dispute the evidentiary record and timeline (Discord date formats, Rose’s screenshots, and Abbymc’s "on or about" declaration), making subject‑matter jurisdiction unclear.
The court granted leave to amend (despite the one‑day tardy filing after the scheduling order deadline), declined to resolve jurisdiction now, and allowed Defendant to move under Rule 12(b)(1) after amendment if he still contends lack of jurisdiction.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether amendment is futile because CARDII is inapplicable (dissemination predated Oct. 1, 2022).	Alleges Google Drive link made materials available through and after Oct. 1, 2022; Abbymc’s declaration supports post‑effective dissemination.	Discord evidence shows transmission in April 2022; CARDII therefore cannot apply retroactively, so federal claim fails.	Court did not decide jurisdiction now; allowed amendment to cure possible defective jurisdictional allegations under § 1653.
Whether leave to amend should be granted under Rule 15 (undue delay, bad faith, prejudice).	Motion filed essentially timely (one day late); no bad faith or dilatory motive; Defendant raised jurisdiction repeatedly so not prejudiced.	Asserts contradiction in timing allegations and argues futility; suggests Plaintiff should have earlier proof (Abbymc testimony at hearing).	Court found no undue delay/bad faith or unfair prejudice and granted leave, noting Rule 15 favors liberal amendment.
Whether good cause under Rule 16 is met (scheduling order deadline passed).	One‑day delay (filed July 7 v. July 6 deadline); explains need to cure jurisdictional defect.	Implied that deadline and prior briefing should bar amendment or show prejudice.	Court declined to treat the single‑day lateness as undue delay; good cause satisfied in context; leave granted.
Whether Defendant is precluded from later challenging jurisdiction after amendment.	Seeks to cure jurisdictional pleading defects so case can proceed.	Contends jurisdiction remains lacking and preserves right to move to dismiss.	Court: Defendant remains free to file a Rule 12(b)(1) motion after the First Amended Complaint is filed.

Key Cases Cited

Morrison v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 228 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2000) (federal courts are courts of limited subject‑matter jurisdiction)
Thermoset Corp. v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 849 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2017) (district court’s limited subject‑matter jurisdiction categories)
Johansen v. Combustion Eng’g, Inc., 170 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 1999) (court must inquire into jurisdiction whenever doubt arises)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend should be freely given absent substantial reason)
Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417 (11th Cir. 1998) (scheduling‑order amendments require showing of good cause)
Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2001) (district court discretion in granting leave to amend; denial without reason is abuse of discretion)
Hall v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 367 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2004) (amendment may be denied as futile if the amended complaint would not survive dismissal)
St. Charles Foods, Inc. v. Am.'s Favorite Chicken Co., 198 F.3d 815 (11th Cir. 1999) (futility determination akin to motion to dismiss)
Miller v. Stanmore, 636 F.2d 986 (5th Cir. 1981) (§ 1653 and Rule 15 to be liberally construed to permit amendment to cure jurisdictional defects)
Majd‑Pour v. Georgiana Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 724 F.2d 901 (11th Cir. 1984) (leave to amend to properly allege jurisdiction should be freely granted)