Fletcher v. Facebook, Inc.

Background

Timothy Randolph Fletcher, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an action alleging several civil-rights violations arising from the termination of his Facebook account on or about March 24, 2021. His claims were labeled: deprivation of free speech in a public forum; violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act; and a civil action for deprivation of rights and conspiracy against constitutional rights.

Fletcher alleged that he depended on Facebook to communicate with family, friends, church members, and others. He also alleged that Facebook and Meta used complaint-related policies to terminate accounts and that Facebook employees coordinated with United States government employees to suppress dissent. The opinion recounts these allegations but does not decide whether they are legally valid.

Transfer and Venue Analysis

Fletcher moved to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California if the South Carolina court determined that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Meta. Meta argued that dismissal was appropriate but did not oppose transferring the case if the court found transfer appropriate.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), when a case is filed in an improper venue, a court may dismiss it or, if the interests of justice favor that result, transfer it to a proper venue. The report examined whether venue was proper in South Carolina under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

The report stated that Facebook, Inc. was not a separate entity from Meta Platforms, Inc., which changed its name in October 2021. It determined that Meta was incorporated in Delaware and had its principal place of business in Menlo Park, California. The report concluded that Meta was not subject to general personal jurisdiction in South Carolina because it was not essentially based there.

The report also concluded that South Carolina lacked specific personal jurisdiction over Meta. Fletcher’s allegations showed that he accessed Facebook from South Carolina, but they did not show that Meta specifically targeted South Carolina or purposefully created a connection with the state. The general availability of Facebook to South Carolina users was not enough, according to the report.

The report separately examined where the events giving rise to Fletcher’s claims occurred. It concluded that the substantial part of those events involved actions by Meta employees in Menlo Park, California, concerning the alleged disabling of Fletcher’s account. Menlo Park is in the Northern District of California. Fletcher did not provide allegations or evidence showing that a substantial part of those events occurred in South Carolina.

Recommendation and Effect

The report found that the interests of justice favored transfer because transfer would avoid the time and expense of refiling the lawsuit. It also stated that venue and personal jurisdiction apparently would be satisfied in the Northern District of California and that both parties had consented to transfer.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cifey recommended that Fletcher’s Motion to Transfer be granted and that the action be transferred to the Northern District of California. This was a report and recommendation for review by the district judge, not a ruling deciding the underlying civil-rights or disability claims. The report also declined to address Meta’s motion to dismiss and Fletcher’s second motion to amend, leaving those motions for the transferee court. The parties were notified that they could file specific written objections within 14 days after service.