Vogel v. Go Daddy Group, Inc.
266 F. Supp. 3d 234
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Vogel, a California citizen, sued GoDaddy and four unnamed Doe defendants in D.D.C. for state-law torts (defamation, IIED, false light, tortious interference, trespass) arising from allegedly anonymous online posts and flyers; he claimed $1M in damages and sought injunctive relief.
- Plaintiff obtained limited early discovery and subpoenaed a Los Angeles law firm; early discovery produced IP-address information the plaintiff says ties the Doe accounts to Virginia, Texas, and Illinois.
- Plaintiff sought to amend to dismiss GoDaddy and allege the Doe defendants are citizens of VA, TX, and IL (based on IP geolocation data), leaving only Doe defendants in federal court.
- Prospective amicus Freedman + Taitelman argued the court lacks subject-matter and personal jurisdiction: diversity is not established as to Doe defendants and IP addresses do not establish citizenship or contacts with D.C.
- The court treated the revised filing as a motion for leave to amend and evaluated whether the proposed amended complaint plausibly alleges subject-matter jurisdiction under diversity (28 U.S.C. § 1332).
- Holding: amendment would be futile; IP-address/geolocation allegations do not plausibly establish the Doe defendants’ domiciles (presence plus intent to remain), so diversity jurisdiction is not shown and the case is dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant/Amicus Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed amended complaint adequately alleges diversity jurisdiction when only Doe defendants remain | Vogel: IP-address + geolocation data plausibly show Doe defendants are citizens of VA, TX, IL, establishing complete diversity and amount-in-controversy | Amicus: IP addresses identify devices/locations, not individuals or their domiciles; Doe-only diversity inadequate; personal jurisdiction also lacking | Denied — IP data alone do not plausibly allege domicile (presence + intent); Doe-only diversity insufficient; amendment futile |
| Whether plaintiff may use early discovery to establish jurisdiction after dismissing a diverse defendant | Vogel: early discovery can yield proof of citizenship, so amendment should be allowed | Amicus: plaintiff cannot keep case in federal court against Does hoping discovery will create diversity; discovery tools are not available absent jurisdiction | Denied — allowing discovery to manufacture subject-matter jurisdiction is impermissible when only Doe defendants remain |
| Whether an IP address satisfies the domicile/intent element for citizenship in diversity cases | Vogel: IP geolocation suffices to show situs and thus citizenship | Amicus: IP addresses only identify a computer/network endpoint and do not prove a person’s domicile or intent to remain | Denied — court follows D.C. Circuit reasoning that IP addresses identify devices/locations but not an individual’s domicile or intent |
| Whether the court should grant leave to amend under Rule 15(a) | Vogel: seeks to amend to cure jurisdictional defect; amendment should be allowed | Amicus: amendment is futile because it cannot cure lack of subject-matter jurisdiction | Denied as futile — Rule 15 does not permit amendment that cannot plausibly establish jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Prakash v. American University, 727 F.2d 1174 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (domicile requires physical presence and intent to remain)
- Loughlin v. United States, 393 F.3d 155 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (court must determine jurisdictional facts and party bears burden)
- Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806) (complete diversity requirement)
- Weinstein v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 831 F.3d 470 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (IP addresses identify devices/connection points, not particular users)
- Sinclair v. TubeSockTedD, 596 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D.D.C.) (diversity suits cannot proceed solely against Doe defendants hoping to later establish citizenship)
- Meng v. Schwartz, 305 F. Supp. 2d 49 (D.D.C.) (same principle regarding Doe defendants and diversity)
- Howell by Goerdt v. Tribute Entertainment Co., 106 F.3d 215 (7th Cir.) (noting limits on suing unnamed Doe defendants in diversity actions)