Webber v. Armslist LLC, 1:20-cv-01526

Background:

Plaintiff Richard Webber (special administrator for Sara Schmidt's estate) sued Armslist LLC and Jonathan Gibbon in diversity court alleging Armslist’s website design and business practices enabled a prohibited person to buy a gun that was later used to murder Schmidt.
Complaint asserted common‑law negligence, negligence per se, public nuisance, civil conspiracy, wrongful death, survival action, and veil‑piercing against Gibbon.
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim; Plaintiff moved to transfer the case to the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Court found personal jurisdiction over both Armslist and Gibbon based on Wisconsin’s long‑arm statute and defendants’ purposeful direction of services to Wisconsin users.
Court held § 230(c)(1) did not bar Plaintiff’s claims because the complaint targets defendants’ own website design/conduct rather than treating them as the publisher of third‑party content.
Despite jurisdiction and § 230 ruling, the court dismissed all substantive claims for failure to state a claim: it found Plaintiff’s causation allegations implausible and, alternatively, concluded Wisconsin public policy (superseding criminal act and remoteness of injury) bars recovery.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to transfer venue	Western District of Pennsylvania is more convenient (defendants/witnesses/proof there)	Wisconsin forum is proper; transfer unnecessary and would relitigate pending motions	Denied — private factors a wash; public interest and Wisconsin law/facts favor keeping case in E.D. Wis.
Personal jurisdiction	Suit may proceed in Wisconsin because injury occurred there and Armslist’s services reach Wisconsin users	Defendants argued contacts insufficient for specific jurisdiction	Granted — court found purposeful availment/direction to WI customers and jurisdiction over both Armslist and Gibbon
CDA §230 immunity	Plaintiff: §230 does not shield claims challenging defendants’ own platform design and affirmative conduct	Defendants: §230 bars liability for harms traceable to third‑party postings on interactive service	Denied — §230(c)(1) not controlling where claim targets defendants’ own design/operation rather than treating them as publisher of third‑party content
Failure to state a claim / causation & public policy	Plaintiff alleges Armslist’s design foreseeably enabled prohibited purchasers and was a substantial factor in Schmidt’s death	Defendants: causal chain too remote; criminal act was superseding cause; policy precludes imposing liability on a legal marketplace	Granted — complaint fails to plausibly plead causation; alternatively recovery barred by Wisconsin public‑policy factors (remoteness, superseding criminal act, disproportionate burden) — all claims dismissed

Key Cases Cited

Atlantic Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49 (2013) (governing analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for transfer requests)
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (private‑interest convenience factors for transfer)
uBID, Inc. v. GoDaddy Grp., Inc., 623 F.3d 421 (7th Cir.) (specific jurisdiction for interactive websites with substantial in‑forum customers)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and contacts supporting specific jurisdiction)
Vesely v. Armslist LLC, 762 F.3d 661 (7th Cir.) (dismissing negligence claim under Illinois law against Armslist for third‑party criminal act)
City of Chicago v. StubHub!, Inc., 624 F.3d 363 (7th Cir.) (limits of § 230 and who may be treated as publisher)
Huon v. Denton, 841 F.3d 733 (7th Cir.) (§ 230 applies in defamation/related theories; does not automatically bar all tort theories)
Daniel v. Armslist, LLC, 386 Wis. 2d 449 (Wis. 2019) (Wisconsin Supreme Court decision addressing § 230 in a related Armslist case)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: courts need not accept legal conclusions as true)