576 F.Supp.3d 1082
M.D. Fla.2021Background
- On Feb 5, 2020 Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren posted separate tweets commemorating Trayvon Martin; Zimmerman alleges both tweets implied culpability for Martin's death and were widely viewed, including in Florida.
- Zimmerman (Florida resident, acquitted in 2013 of charges arising from the shooting) filed an amended complaint alleging general defamation, defamation by implication, and defamation per se against both candidates.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint as a shotgun pleading, for lack of personal jurisdiction, and for failure to state defamation claims (arguing lack of actual malice and opinion defenses).
- The court analyzed shotgun-pleading rules, Florida long-arm jurisdiction and Due Process, and the pleading sufficiency for each defamation theory.
- The court held the amended complaint was a shotgun pleading and dismissed it without prejudice, but found the complaint adequately pleaded facts supporting personal jurisdiction and granted Zimmerman one final opportunity to file a compliant second amended complaint by Jan. 5, 2022.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shotgun pleading | Zimmerman realleged facts and properly asserted each claim against both defendants | Amended complaint lumps two distinct tweets and re-alleges all counts, failing to give proper notice | Court: Amended complaint is a shotgun pleading (counts incorporate all prior allegations); dismissed without prejudice and plaintiff given leave to amend |
| Personal jurisdiction (Florida long-arm) | Tweets were about Zimmerman (his name is "100% synonymous" with Trayvon Martin), were read in Florida, and thus were published into Florida | Jurisdiction depends on whether tweets were about Zimmerman; defendants sought limited jurisdictional discovery | Court: Allegations and attached screenshots plausibly allege publication in Florida; defendants submitted no affidavits to controvert jurisdiction; jurisdictional and merits issues are intertwined; no limited discovery granted; personal jurisdiction satisfied |
| Due Process (minimum contacts) | Defendants purposefully directed statements at Zimmerman and foreseeable harms in Florida; Florida has strong interest | Tweets were broad to national followers and not directed at Florida; Due Process requires more specific contacts | Court: Accepting pleaded facts, defendants had fair warning and purposefully directed activities causing injuries related to Florida; Due Process not offended |
| Sufficiency of defamation claims (actual malice; opinion; defamation per se) | Tweets implied false, actionable facts and defendants knew of Zimmerman’s acquittal; alleged damages support defamation per se | Plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead actual malice; statements may be non-actionable opinions; defamation-per-se allegations rest on inferences beyond the words | Court: Plaintiff failed to plead actual malice for general defamation and defamation-by-implication; court could not resolve opinion defense at this stage; defamation per se survives in part because complaint also alleges statements tending to subject Zimmerman to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt or disgrace; resolution deferred pending amended pleading/summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015) (defines shotgun pleading categories)
- Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955 (11th Cir. 2008) (remedy for shotgun pleadings: strike or require more definite statement)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state plausible claim; legal conclusions not entitled to presumption)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Morris v. SSE, Inc., 843 F.2d 489 (11th Cir. 1988) (plaintiff's prima facie burden for personal jurisdiction absent evidentiary hearing)
- Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2013) (distinguishes specific and general jurisdiction under Florida law)
- Horizon Aggressive Growth, L.P. v. Rothstein-Kass, P.A., 421 F.3d 1162 (11th Cir. 2005) (electronic communications can subject nonresidents to Florida long-arm jurisdiction)
- Internet Sols. Corp. v. Marshall, 39 So.3d 1201 (Fla. 2010) (defamation published where defamatory material is accessed; online posting can be published in Florida)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (actual malice standard for public-figure defamation claims)
- Turner v. Wells, 879 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2018) (distinguishes protected pure opinion from actionable factual assertions)
- Wolfson v. Kirk, 273 So.2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973) (defamation per se must be determined from words alone)
- Adams v. News-Journal Corp., 84 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1955) (categories that qualify as defamation per se)