384 F. Supp. 3d 898
M.D. Tenn.2019Background
- Plaintiffs Roger and Kerry Finley (married) sued Robyn Kelly in Tennessee state court after Robyn allegedly posted and circulated a 79‑page document (and sent numerous emails/voicemails) containing private communications and accusations about Roger and Kerry; the case was removed to federal court.
- The Document (uploaded under a handle and sent to at least 18 recipients including family and friends) repeated allegations that Roger was a sociopath, stalker, alcoholic, abuser, and attacked Kerry as abusive, and included private messages and photos.
- Plaintiffs allege state-law claims for defamation (libel), public disclosure of private facts, intrusion upon seclusion, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and earlier moved to dismiss or transfer for improper venue; venue/transfer arguments were renewed in a footnote.
- The court held venue in the Middle District of Tennessee is proper under the removal statute §1441(a) and denied transfer under §1404(a). On the merits, the court denied dismissal of defamation and public-disclosure claims, but granted dismissal of intrusion upon seclusion and both intentional and negligent emotional-distress claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue / Transfer | Case filed in Tennessee; forum choice entitled to deference | Venue improper under §1391; transfer to N.D. Cal. favors convenience | Venue proper under §1441(a) for removed cases; transfer denied (plaintiffs' forum choice and witness proximity favored TN) |
| Defamation (libel) | Statements in Document and repeated emails are false, published to third parties, injured reputation | Many statements are hyperbolic opinion, rhetorical insults, non-actionable | Defamation claim survives: statements capable of defamatory meaning when read in context (e.g., “sociopath,” “stalker,” “drunk” can be defamatory) |
| Public disclosure of private facts | Disclosure to family/friends and claim Document was circulated publicly supports publicity element | Publication to a limited group is insufficient as a matter of law | Claim survives at pleading stage: allegations that Document was sent to relatives/friends and that defendant had shared it support a plausible publicity allegation |
| Intrusion upon seclusion | Defendant intruded by accessing/collecting and circulating private communications | Plaintiff lacked an objectively reasonable expectation of seclusion in messages sent to defendant; consent waived privacy | Claim dismissed: plaintiffs put private communications into defendant's hands and no reasonable expectation of seclusion alleged |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) | Longstanding harassment, hundreds of emails, threats, and disclosure caused severe distress | Conduct not sufficiently extreme or outrageous as a matter of law | IIED dismissed: Tennessee requires atrocious, utterly intolerable conduct; alleged emails/disclosures fall short |
| Negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) | Negligent cyber‑harassment and distribution of private material caused severe emotional injury | Allegations are conclusory and do not plead extreme conduct or required severe injury | NIED dismissed: complaint is conclusory and plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead severe emotional injury or extreme conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Kerobo v. Sw. Clean Fuels, Corp., 285 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 2002) (venue for removed actions governed by §1441(a))
- Polizzi v. Cowles Magazines, Inc., 345 U.S. 663 (1953) (same principle on venue after removal)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts accept well‑pleaded facts but not legal conclusions)
- Gulf Oil Co. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947) (§1404(a) transfer factors and heavy deference to plaintiff's forum choice)
- Sullivan v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp., 995 S.W.2d 569 (Tenn. 1999) (elements of defamation under Tennessee law)
- Givens v. Mullikin, 75 S.W.3d 383 (Tenn. 2002) (intrusion upon seclusion recognized by Tenn. Ct. App.; Restatement §652B standard)