Tara Blessing v. Sujana Chandrasekhar
988 F.3d 889
6th Cir.2021Background
- In January 2019 Covington Catholic high‑school students were filmed at the Lincoln Memorial; the incident received national attention.
- Kathy Griffin (California) and Sujana Chandrasekhar (New Jersey) posted critical tweets urging naming/shaming of the students; neither defendant lives in Kentucky nor targeted Kentucky specifically.
- Kentucky students sued each defendant in the Eastern District of Kentucky asserting state criminal statutes (as private causes of action) and common‑law torts; defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Griffin’s counsel filed a one‑page notice of appearance and then, two weeks later, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; plaintiffs argued the notice waived the defense under Gerber.
- The district court dismissed both cases without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction and held Griffin had not waived the defense; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a counsel notice of appearance alone waives a personal‑jurisdiction defense | Gerkin plaintiffs: Gerber requires waiver when counsel files an appearance before moving to dismiss | Griffin: a pro forma notice of appearance does not forfeit the defense; Gerber is fact‑specific | Filing a notice of appearance alone does not waive personal jurisdiction; waiver requires fact‑specific litigation conduct showing submission to the court |
| Whether KRS 454.210(2)(a)(3) (tortious act in the Commonwealth) covers out‑of‑state tweets that injure Kentucky residents | Tweets caused tortious/ criminal injury where received in Kentucky; thus the ‘‘act’’ occurs in Kentucky | The defendants committed no act in Kentucky; Pierce and statute text require the act to occur in the forum | (2)(a)(3) does not apply: tweets sent from out of state are not acts ‘‘in [the] Commonwealth’’ |
| Whether Calder (effects‑based jurisdiction) supports exercising specific jurisdiction over out‑of‑state social‑media posts | Plaintiffs: defendants intentionally caused tortious harm felt in Kentucky, so Calder governs | Defendants: under Walden, Calder requires the forum be the focal point and defendant‑directed conduct toward the forum; tweets were not specifically aimed at Kentucky | Due‑process minimum‑contacts analysis fails: defendants did not purposefully direct activities to Kentucky; Calder/Walden favor defendants |
| Whether plaintiffs’ allegation that third‑party doxxing occurred in Kentucky makes jurisdiction proper | Plaintiffs: third‑party actions show harm and connection to Kentucky; defendants induced those results | Defendants: plaintiff/third‑party contacts cannot substitute for defendants’ own forum contacts | Third‑party dissemination and plaintiffs’ forum ties do not establish defendant contacts sufficient for jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Gerber v. Riordan, 649 F.3d 514 (6th Cir. 2011) (discusses waiver by litigation conduct; court clarifies Gerber is fact‑specific and does not create a bright‑line rule that an appearance alone waives personal jurisdiction)
- King v. Taylor, 694 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. 2012) (limits Gerber: waiver/forfeiture requires consideration of all relevant circumstances; appearance does not automatically forfeit defense)
- Boulger v. Woods, 917 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2019) (reiterates there is no bright‑line rule for waiver by conduct)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (minimum‑contacts inquiry focuses on defendant’s forum contacts, not plaintiff’s forum connections)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (effects‑test: jurisdiction proper where the forum is the focal point of the harm and the defendant’s conduct is aimed at the forum)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (establishes minimum‑contacts/due‑process framework)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment standard for jurisdiction)
- Reynolds v. Int’l Amateur Athletic Fed’n, 23 F.3d 1110 (6th Cir. 1994) (declines jurisdiction where communication was not focused on the forum)
- Days Inns Worldwide, Inc. v. Patel, 445 F.3d 899 (6th Cir. 2006) (discusses what constitutes submission to a district court’s jurisdiction)
- Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (1982) (appearance and voluntary use of court procedures can constitute submission)
- Mobile Anesthesiologists Chicago, LLC v. Anesthesia Assoc. of Houston Metroplex, P.A., 623 F.3d 440 (7th Cir. 2010) (explains when litigation conduct creates reasonable expectation defendant will defend merits)