Henderson et al v. Commercial Dispatch Publishing Corporation Inc, No. 7:2021cv01578 - Document 14 (N.D. Ala. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 2 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction for reasons set out herein. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 1/21/2022. (JLC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Henderson et al v. Commercial Dispatch Publishing Corporation Inc Doc. 14 FILED 2022 Jan-21 AM 10:32 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA WESTERN DIVISION SHANE HENDERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COMMERCIAL DISPATCH PUBLISHING CORPORATION, INC., Defendant. } } } } } } } } } } Case No.: 7:21-CV-1578-RDP MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. (Doc. # 2). The matter has been fully briefed (Docs. # 2, 7, and 12) and is ripe for review. The Motion (Doc. # 2) borders on frivolous and is due to be denied. “A federal district court in [Alabama] may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to the same extent that [an Alabama] court may, so long as the exercise is consistent with federal due process requirements.” Licciardello v. Lovelady, 544 F.3d 1280, 1283 (11th Cir. 2008); see also Ala. R. Civ. P. 4.2. The Supreme Court has recognized two types of personal jurisdiction that are consistent with these legal requirements—general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction. See Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 923-24 (2011). Only the latter, specific jurisdiction, is at issue here. A court has specific jurisdiction over a defendant with respect to claims that arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum. Id. at 923-24. As explained below, and after careful review, the court concludes it has such specific jurisdiction over Defendant in this case. Plaintiffs -- who are based in Tuscaloosa, Alabama -- allege that an article published by Defendant Commercial Dispatch defamed them. Defendant’s offices are in Mississippi, eleven miles from the Alabama state line. (Doc. # 2 at 3). Until this litigation started, its Instagram and Dockets.Justia.com Facebook bios described it as a “newspaper and website covering,” among other areas, “portions of western Alabama.” (Doc. # 1-1 ¶¶ 12-13; see also Doc. # 2-1 ¶ 10). Currently, 143 Alabama residents subscribe to Defendant (Doc. # 2-1 ¶ 13), and single copy circulation in Alabama is approximately 150 per week (id. ¶ 12). Electronic records indicate that the digital version of the allegedly defamatory article has been viewed 295 times in Alabama. (Id. ¶ 19). The article at issue in this case reads as follows: 2 (Doc. # 1-1 at 32-33). 3 But, Plaintiff Henderson claims he was not the president of Gilco Contracting when it was issued OSHA citations. (Doc. # 7-1 ¶ 13). Thus, it is alleged, Defendant defamed Plaintiff Henderson and Plaintiff Southern Civil Contracting, Inc. by linking them to violations for which they were not responsible. (See Doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 41-47). Defendant’s arguments are clearly foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). There, the Court held that the California court properly had specific jurisdiction over non-resident defendants who published an allegedly libelous article about the resident plaintiff. Id. at 788-90. The Supreme Court summarized Calder in one of its later decisions: The crux of Calder was that the reputation-based “effects” of the alleged libel connected the defendants to California, not just to the plaintiff. The strength of that connection was largely a function of the nature of the libel tort. However scandalous a newspaper article might be, it can lead to a loss of reputation only if communicated to (and read and understood by) third persons. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 577, Comment b (1976); see also ibid. (“[R]eputation is the estimation in which one’s character is held by his neighbors or associates”). Accordingly, the reputational injury caused by the defendants’ story would not have occurred but for the fact that the defendants wrote an article for publication in California that was read by a large number of California citizens. Indeed, because publication to third persons is a necessary element of libel, see id., § 558, the defendants’ intentional tort actually occurred in California. Keeton [v. Hustler Magazine], 465 U.S. [770,] 777 [1984] (“the tort of libel is generally held to occur wherever the offending material is circulated”). In this way, the “effects” caused by the defendants’ article -- i.e., the injury to the plaintiff’s reputation in the estimation of the California public -- connected the defendants’ conduct to California, not just to a plaintiff who lived there. That connection, combined with the various facts that gave the article a California focus, sufficed to authorize the California court’s exercise of jurisdiction. Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 287-88 (2014). Here, Defendant explicitly targeted Alabama readers and published an article about an Alabama company, its Alabama leadership, and events that had occurred in Alabama. In addition, the article’s author had contacts with Alabama in preparing the story. (See Doc. # 1-1 at 33 (“Henderson could not be reached for comment after 4 multiple calls and voice messages from The Dispatch to the Southern Civil office [in Alabama].”)). After its publication, the article was read by the people in Alabama, and Plaintiffs now allege they felt the article’s effects -- damaged reputations -- in Alabama. Finally, it would “not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” to exercise jurisdiction over Defendant. Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, Solano Cty., 480 U.S. 102, 105 (1987) (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). Defendant’s offices are located only 59.1 miles from this courthouse (Doc. # 7-2 ¶ 19), and Alabama has an interest in safeguarding the reputation of its citizens and companies. This case is not a close call. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this January 21, 2022. _________________________________ R. DAVID PROCTOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
