Evans v. Robertson
5:24-cv-13435
E.D. Mich.Sep 25, 2025Background
- Evans sues Robertson and Jane Does 1-10 in E.D. Mich. for copyright infringement, defamation, fraud, and harassment; Robertson moves to set aside default and to dismiss.
- Robertson appeared to challenge personal jurisdiction and service; court ordered show cause about jurisdiction and proper service.
- Evans alleges extensive online harassment, including deepfake pornography, disclosure of Michigan-based materials, and police wellness checks triggered by Robertson’s actions.
- Robertson used a Dover, Delaware registered agent (ARA) and multiple aliases/address changes; service issues were contested.
- Court applies Michigan long-arm and due process analysis to determine specific vs general jurisdiction; some claims tied to Michigan, others not.
- Judge Stafford recommends granting in part Robertson’s motion to set aside default and granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss; remaining claims include copyright infringement, defamation, and cyberbullying.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Robertson waived jurisdiction/service defenses | Evans: Robertson waived by appearance | Robertson: defenses not waived in combined motion | Waiver not established; defenses preserved |
| Whether the court may exercise personal jurisdiction | Evans: specific jurisdiction over several Michigan-based harms | Robertson: insufficient contacts or improper targeting | Specific jurisdiction supported for some claims (copyright, certain defamation/bodycam-related harms); conspiracy and some others lack jurisdiction |
| Whether venue is proper or waived | Evans: events in Michigan; venue proper | Robertson: venue improper | Venue not properly challenged; argument waived; venue likely proper in ED Mich |
| Whether service of process was valid or warrants alternate service | Evans: service feasible via Dover agent; need valid service | Robertson challenges agent status and name; alias issues | Service contested; default should be set aside; alternate service ordered; identify legal name and address later |
| Whether Evans states a valid claim under Rule 12(b)(5) and merits viability | Evans argues claims suffice; service issues pending | Robertson: merits should be dismissed if service invalid | Merits unresolved pending proper service; dismissal denied without prejudice; some claims may proceed with proper service. |
Key Cases Cited
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (focus on effects and targeting in personal jurisdiction for defamation)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (U.S. 2014) (jurisdiction based on defendant’s contacts with forum, not plaintiff's)
- Blessing v. Chandrasekhar, 988 F.3d 889 (6th Cir. 2021) (lack of jurisdiction when communications not targeted to forum)
- Johnson v. Griffin, 85 F.4th 429 (6th Cir. 2023) (instruction on targeting posts to forum and deliberate impact)
- AlixPartners, LLP v. 836 F.3d 549, 836 F.3d 549 (6th Cir. 2016) (minimum contacts and due process for specific jurisdiction)