United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
D. Crabtree United States District Judge.
matter is before the court on defendants Facebook
Incorporated and Mark Zuckerberg's Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 13). Pro se plaintiff Kandance Wells has filed several
responses (Docs. 18, 20, and 22) and defendants have replied
(Doc. 23). And, plaintiff has filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 21) to which defendants have responded (Doc.
24). Plaintiff also filed another “Supplement”
response (Doc. 25). For reasons explained below, the court
grants defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) and thus
denies plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21)
filed this action against defendants on July 11, 2019. Doc.
1. Plaintiff alleges that “[d]efendants['] website
uploaded internet cookies to plaintiff['s] social media
profiles that led to tracking, threats, and public
backlash.” Id. at 3. And, plaintiff alleges
“[d]efendants['] website mandates clauses that made
plaintiff a victim to severe media and public relations
tracking and lobbying.” Id. Plaintiff seeks
$93 million in actual damages, punitive damages, and
injunctive relief from defendants. Plaintiff also asks the
court to prevent defendants from “media tracking in
personal endeavors” and “to eradicate such
mandate clauses that victimizes users of this website for the
protection of consumers.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff
alleges that her “life was ruined” by using
Facebook because of “severe mental anguish, public
scrutiny, track[ing], brutaliz[ation], and blackball[ing] . .
. .” Id. Finally, plaintiff asserts that
defendants violated her civil rights.
plaintiff bears the burden to establish personal jurisdiction
over each defendant named in the action. Rockwood Select
Asset Fund XI (6)-1, LLC v. Devine, Millimet &
Branch, 750 F.3d 1178, 1179-80 (10th Cir. 2014). But in
the preliminary stages of litigation, a plaintiff's
burden to prove personal jurisdiction is a light one. AST
Sports Sci., Inc. v. CLF Distrib. Ltd., 514 F.3d 1054,
1056 (10th Cir. 2008).
as here, the court is asked to decide a pretrial motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without conducting
an evidentiary hearing, plaintiff must make no more than a
prima facie showing of jurisdiction to defeat the motion.
Id. at 1056-57. “The plaintiff may make this
prima facie showing by demonstrating, via affidavit or other
written materials, facts that if true would support
jurisdiction over the defendant.” OMI Holdings,
Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Can., 149 F.3d 1086, 1091
(10th Cir. 1998).
defeat a plaintiff's prima facie showing of personal
jurisdiction, defendants “must present a compelling
case demonstrating ‘that the presence of some other
considerations would render jurisdiction
unreasonable.'” Id. (quoting Burger
King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 477 (1985)).
Where defendants fail to controvert a plaintiff's
allegations with affidavits or other evidence, the court must
accept the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true,
and resolve any factual disputes in the plaintiff's
favor. Wenz v. Memery Crystal, 55 F.3d 1503, 1505
(10th Cir. 1995).
ask the court to dismiss plaintiff's claims for two
reasons. First, defendants move to dismiss under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), and assert that plaintiff has
failed to establish that the court has personal jurisdiction
over defendants. Second, and alternatively, defendants move
to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
arguing plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a plausible
claim because it never identifies any legal claim or alleges
any facts to support a legal claim. The court first concludes
that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute.
Then, because the court concludes that it lacks personal
jurisdiction over defendants, it does not reach
defendants' argument about whether plaintiff states a
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
court has an independent obligation to satisfy itself that
subject matter jurisdiction is proper. Henderson ex rel.
Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011).
Plaintiff asserts the court has diversity jurisdiction over
this matter. Doc. 1 at 2. To invoke diversity jurisdiction,
plaintiff must show the amount in controversy exceeds $75,
000, and that complete diversity of citizenship exists
between plaintiff and all defendants. 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a). Here, this requirement means plaintiff must allege
that she and all defendants are “citizens of different
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Plaintiff alleges
that she is a citizen of Kansas and both defendants are
citizens of California. Doc. 1 at 2. So, no defendant is a
citizen of the same state as plaintiff. And, plaintiff seeks
$93 million in damages. Id. at 4. Thus, plaintiff
has alleged sufficient facts to show the court has diversity
jurisdiction in this matter.
unclear whether plaintiff intended to bring her claims under
a statute. Plaintiff appears to assert the court has
diversity jurisdiction over her claims, but also asserts the
court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Doc. at
2, 3. In either event, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(k)(1)(A) governs service. Dudnikov v. Chalk &
Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063, 1070 (10th
Cir. 2008). This Rule ...