Amitay v. Jews for Jesus, Inc.

Background

Ariel Zvolon Amitay filed the operative complaint in California state court on December 24, 2024. He asserted claims titled defamation, false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The claims were based on allegations that Jews for Jesus, Inc. uploaded photos of Amitay to social media and added a caption falsely expressing that he supported the organization’s religious views.

Jews for Jesus removed the case to federal court on February 5, 2025. It argued that federal-question jurisdiction existed because the case involved its First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. It also argued, alternatively, that diversity jurisdiction existed.

Federal-Question Jurisdiction

The court held that all four claims appeared on their face to arise under state law. A federal defense, including a First Amendment defense to state-law claims based on speech, does not create federal-question jurisdiction. The court also rejected Jews for Jesus’s argument that the claims were preempted by the Copyright Act. Amitay alleged harm to his reputation and emotional distress from an allegedly false statement, not infringement of rights equivalent to copyright rights in the photograph. The court therefore found that none of Amitay’s claims presented a federal question.

Diversity Jurisdiction and Service

The court noted that Amitay sought at least $5 million in punitive and exemplary damages and did not dispute the allegations that Jews for Jesus was a citizen of California and Amitay was a citizen of Israel. The court assumed, for purposes of this case, that a defendant may remove an action before being served. It nevertheless held that Jews for Jesus had been properly served before the February 5 removal.

A process server’s proof stated that, on January 6, 2025, he left the summons and complaint at Jews for Jesus’s San Francisco office with Sheila Tolbert, whom the proof identified as a person apparently in charge, and mailed copies to David Strull, identified as Jews for Jesus’s agent for service. Under California law, this established a presumption that service was valid. The court found that Jews for Jesus’s evidence did not overcome that presumption. In particular, Tolbert’s declaration did not establish that she was not a responsible person at the office, and evidence that the mailed papers were not received did not disprove that the process server mailed them.

The court also considered arguments that the process server had made false statements about his interactions with Tolbert and earlier attempted service. It found that the video evidence did not clearly capture all of the relevant conversation and did not establish that the earlier attempts could not have occurred outside the hours shown in the recordings. The court therefore found that Jews for Jesus had been properly served before removal. Because Jews for Jesus was a citizen of California, the forum-defendant rule barred removal based on diversity jurisdiction.

Fees and Costs

Amitay requested attorney’s fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), which allows a court remanding a case to award expenses caused by removal in appropriate circumstances. The court denied that request. It reasoned that the law concerning removals before service was unsettled and that Jews for Jesus’s removal and service arguments were not objectively unreasonable, even though the court rejected them.

Disposition

The court granted Amitay’s motion to remand, denied Amitay’s request for attorney’s fees and costs, vacated the scheduled hearing, and remanded the action to the Superior Court of California, in and for the County of San Francisco. Judge Maxine M. Chesney signed the order.