Nadia Naffe v. John Frey, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10027

Nadia Naffe, a Massachusetts resident and conservative activist, sued Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney John Patrick Frey after he published numerous derogatory blog posts and Tweets about her and posted a deposition transcript containing her Social Security number.
Frey maintained a personal blog and Twitter account that contained disclaimers stating his posts were personal and not official statements by the DA’s office; posts were timestamped late at night/early morning.
Naffe alleged damages exceeding $75,000 (reputational harm, emotional distress, medical expenses, credit repair costs, lost earnings) and pleaded one § 1983 claim (First Amendment petition clause) plus six California tort claims.
The district court dismissed the § 1983 claim for failure to plead action under color of state law and dismissed the state claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding Naffe hadn’t proven the amount in controversy by a preponderance.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the § 1983 claim (no plausible facts showing Frey acted under color of law) but reversed the jurisdictional dismissal of state-law claims, holding the district court applied the wrong standard for amount in controversy and that Naffe’s allegations met the legal-certainty test.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Frey acted under color of state law for § 1983 liability when he blogged/Tweeted about Naffe	Frey used his prosecutor status and threatened prosecution to coerce Naffe and chill her speech, so his online conduct was state action	Frey’s posts were private speech on personal accounts with disclaimers and unrelated to his official duties	No — allegations do not plausibly show Frey acted under color of state law; § 1983 claim dismissed
Whether district court properly required plaintiff to prove amount in controversy by a preponderance to invoke diversity jurisdiction	Naffe alleged damages > $75,000 in complaint and submitted a sworn declaration supporting that figure	Defendants argued plaintiff failed to prove amount by a preponderance, so federal jurisdiction lacking	Court applied legal-certainty test (not preponderance); district court erred — state claims meet amount-in-controversy and case remanded

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must plead factual matter making claim plausible)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (elements of § 1983 and acting under color of state law)
St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938) (legal-certainty test for amount in controversy)
McDade v. West, 223 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2000) (state employee abused official resources, creating state action)
Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2006) (off-duty officer’s invocation of authority can constitute state action)
Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831 (9th Cir. 1996) (private misconduct by an officer not transformed into state action absent pretension of official role)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (public employees’ speech pursuant to official duties not protected as citizen speech)