296 F. Supp. 3d 745
D. Md.2017Background
- Maryland residents (Plaintiffs) sued five out‑of‑state users (Defendants) for online defamatory and harassing statements related to a fan‑fiction forum/competition.
- Plaintiffs filed an initial barebones complaint; Defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
- Plaintiffs amended the complaint with more specifics after Defendants' first motion; Defendants then moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, or forum non conveniens.
- Plaintiffs opposed, moved to strike Defendants' jurisdiction/venue objections, and sought jurisdictional discovery.
- The court treated whether Defendants waived Rule 12(b)(2)/(3) defenses as central and evaluated: waiver under Rules 12(g)/(h), whether venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) for internet defamation, and applicability of forum non conveniens.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction waiver | Defendants waived jurisdictional objections by omitting them from first Rule 12 motion | First motion became moot after amendment; jurisdictional defenses remained available | Defendants waived general personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(h) because that defense was available when they filed the first motion; court exercises jurisdiction |
| Venue under § 1391(b)(2) | Venue proper in Maryland because plaintiffs reside there and harm was felt there from online publications | Venue improper because defendants are non‑residents and actions occurred outside Maryland | Venue is proper under § 1391(b)(2): substantial part of events (publication/harm) occurred in Maryland where plaintiffs live |
| Scope of online publication for venue | Publication occurs where third persons are exposed and plaintiff is harmed; internet postings can make venue proper where plaintiff resides | Internet statements occur in many places; could make venue proper in multiple districts | Court adopts rule that defamatory publication occurs where it is publicized and causes harm; plaintiff's residence where harm felt supports venue |
| Forum non conveniens | Not applicable; plaintiff's chosen forum is proper | Move to dismiss on forum non conveniens as alternative remedy | Denied: doctrine applies mainly when an alternative forum is abroad (or rarely a state court); here not invoked so dismissal inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443 (1994) (forum non conveniens doctrine normally applies where alternative forum is foreign)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction standard: continuous and systematic contacts where defendant is "at home")
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (general jurisdiction principles reaffirmed)
- New Wellington Fin. Corp. v. Flagship Resort Dev. Corp., 416 F.3d 290 (4th Cir. 2005) (plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction on motion papers)
- Combs v. Bakker, 886 F.2d 673 (4th Cir. 1989) (procedural standard for jurisdictional prima facie showing)
- Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390 (4th Cir. 2003) (test for specific jurisdiction)
- Sinochem Intern. Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Intern. Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) (forum non conveniens and transfer law; dismissal on forum non conveniens limited when an adequate domestic forum exists)
- International Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (foundational due‑process test for personal jurisdiction)
- Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore, 252 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2001) (motions to strike under Rule 12(f) are generally disfavored)