Rosenblum v. Passes, Inc.
1:25-cv-20899
| S.D. Fla. | Sep 2, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Alice Rosenblum, a former Passes "Creator," alleges she was recruited and groomed as a minor (17) to produce sexually explicit images and videos uploaded to the Passes platform beginning in summer 2024.
- Celestin (Plaintiff's former manager), Ginoza (his assistant), and others allegedly created Plaintiff's Passes account, directed uploads, bypassed safety settings, and marketed the material to buyers; communications and key events occurred in Los Angeles.
- Passes (a subscription content platform) and its CEO Lucy Guo allegedly had machine-learning moderation and policies banning sexual content and minors, but Plaintiff alleges those safeguards were overridden; Passes later suspended Plaintiff's access after counsel contacted the company and removed minors from the platform in Feb. 2025.
- Plaintiff filed a six-count putative class complaint asserting federal and Florida child-pornography statutes, transmission of harmful material to minors, and declaratory relief against Passes, Guo, Celestin, Ginoza, WLM Management, and Nofhotos Group.
- Passes and Guo moved to dismiss or transfer for improper venue and also argued Section 230 immunity and that class allegations should be stricken; the court resolved only venue.
- The Court held venue in the Southern District of Florida was improper and, in the interest of justice, transferred the case to the Central District of California; other motions were denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 | Venue proper in S.D. Fla because Passes' principal place of business is Miami and Guo resided in Miami | Venue improper because the events giving rise to the claims occurred in California and key individual defendants reside there | Venue is not proper in S.D. Fla; plaintiff failed to show a substantial part of the events occurred in this district |
| Transfer vs. dismissal (28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)) | Implicitly opposed dismissal; sought to litigate in Florida | If venue improper, request dismissal or transfer to Central District of California | In interest of justice, case transferred to Central District of California rather than dismissed |
| Section 230 immunity (47 U.S.C. § 230) | Complaint alleges Passes took affirmative, manual actions (overrides) that may render § 230 inapplicable | Passes argues CDA immunity bars claims | Court did not resolve § 230 because venue disposition was dispositive |
| Motion to strike class allegations | Class treatment is appropriate / plaintiff seeks class relief | Class allegations are not capable of classwide treatment; move to strike | Court did not rule on class allegations; motion to strike not reached due to transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- Terrebonne v. Blackburn, 646 F.2d 997 (5th Cir. 1981) (courts may take judicial notice of public agency records)
- United States v. Howard, 28 F.4th 180 (11th Cir. 2022) (taking judicial notice of publicly available state records)
- Wai v. Rainbow Holdings, 315 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (plaintiff bears burden to show venue is proper on motion to dismiss)
- Jenkins Brick Co. v. Bremer, 321 F.3d 1366 (11th Cir. 2003) (venue analysis focuses on where defendants' relevant wrongful acts occurred)
- Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. v. MidSouth Capital, Inc., 669 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (only actions with a close nexus to the wrong support venue)
- Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (1962) (district court should transfer rather than dismiss when venue is improper to serve the interests of justice)