Elliot v. HBO Home Entertainment Corp.
1:24-cv-07879
S.D.N.Y.Sep 30, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Marc Elliot, a Missouri resident, sued several New York-based individuals and entities, including those affiliated with HBO, related to the broadcast of a recorded call in an episode of the documentary series “The Vow.”
- The allegedly unauthorized call was recorded in New York between Elliot and Constantino and later used in the series, which was nationally distributed, including in Missouri.
- Elliot entered into a Consent and Release agreement in 2020 with The Square, LLC, a New York-based entity, waiving certain publicity rights and agreeing to New York jurisdiction for related disputes.
- Elliot filed suit in Missouri state court claiming right of publicity violations and civil conspiracy; defendants removed to federal court on diversity grounds.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim, or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York.
- The court considered declarations and documentary evidence, including affidavits and the Consent and Release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction | Missouri has jurisdiction via Defendants’ conduct, registration, and availability of the series in Missouri. | Defendants are not domiciled or conducting substantial business in Missouri; contacts insufficient. | Court lacks both general and specific personal jurisdiction over all Defendants. |
| General jurisdiction | HBO’s registration and series’ availability in Missouri confer general jurisdiction. | Registration and internet availability do not make Defendants “at home” in Missouri. | Registration/availability insufficient for general jurisdiction under Missouri law. |
| Specific jurisdiction | Claims relate to tortious acts and business conducted in Missouri. | No actionable conduct occurred in or was targeted at Missouri. | Missouri’s long-arm statute not satisfied; no specific jurisdiction. |
| Venue & transfer | Venue proper in Missouri; opposes transfer. | Venue improper; seeks transfer to New York. | Transfer to Southern District of New York proper and in the interest of justice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general vs. specific jurisdiction standards)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 582 U.S. 255 (requirement that court have jurisdiction over each defendant)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standard for evaluating factual vs. legal allegations)
- Mallory v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 600 U.S. 122 (corporate registration and jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (corporate "at home" standard for general jurisdiction)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (individualized jurisdictional analysis for defendants)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (jurisdiction and state law boundaries)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (change of venue factors)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (venue transfer doctrine)