King v. Bumble Trading, Inc.

Background

Bumble Trading, Inc. and Bumble Holding, Ltd. operate the Bumble dating application and its paid Bumble Boost service. Nick King, Jr., Deena Fischer, Elena Weinberger, and Brian Wess alleged that Bumble violated New York laws in connection with Bumble Boost and sought to represent a nationwide class of purchasers.

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), which permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. The motion challenged jurisdiction over Wess’s claims and the claims of absent out-of-state class members. The court had previously deferred that issue so the parties could conduct jurisdictional discovery.

Personal-Jurisdiction Analysis

The court first rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that Bumble had waived its personal-jurisdiction challenge through a forum-selection clause in Bumble’s terms of use. The clause stated that users consented to the jurisdiction of courts in the United States and New York and waived objections based on an inconvenient forum. The court interpreted the clause as referring to the user’s waiver, not a waiver by Bumble, and concluded that Bumble had not waived its challenge.

The court next rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that California had general jurisdiction over the defendants. General jurisdiction permits a court to hear claims unrelated to the defendant’s forum contacts and ordinarily exists for a corporation where it is incorporated or has its principal place of business. The plaintiffs relied on California corporate filings, the presence of some officers in California, and other documents. The court found that this evidence did not show that California was the place where the defendants’ high-level officers directed, controlled, and coordinated their activities.

The court then considered specific jurisdiction, which concerns claims arising from or related to the defendant’s activities in the forum. The defendants did not challenge jurisdiction over the California plaintiffs’ claims. The court found specific jurisdiction over the absent out-of-state class members’ claims. It followed its earlier decision in a prior related proceeding and declined to apply the Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb to unnamed members of a class at this stage. The court also found no evidence that exercising jurisdiction would be unreasonable in this nationwide class action.

The result was different for Wess because he was a named plaintiff and therefore had to establish personal jurisdiction over his own claims. The court found that Wess’s claims arose from Bumble’s New York-related conduct, not from product design, user-experience, or marketing activities in California. The court also declined to exercise pendent personal jurisdiction, a discretionary doctrine that can allow jurisdiction over related claims lacking an independent jurisdictional basis. The court explained that the case involved only state-law claims, that authority weighed against exercising pendent jurisdiction in a diversity case, and that Wess could proceed as an unnamed class member if removed as an individual plaintiff.

Other Rulings and Disposition

The defendants asked the court to certify the personal-jurisdiction issue for an immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The court found a substantial ground for disagreement because courts had reached different conclusions about whether Bristol-Myers applied to class actions. But it concluded that an immediate appeal would not materially advance the end of the litigation because the case would continue even if the jurisdictional ruling regarding Wess and the absent out-of-state class members were reversed. The court therefore declined to certify the order for interlocutory appeal.

The parties also asked to seal declarations, exhibits, and portions of briefing related to the jurisdictional discovery. The court found that the materials were only tangentially related to the merits and that good cause supported sealing because they contained nonpublic information about Bumble’s internal decision-making processes and employment terms. The court granted both parties’ motions to seal.

Judge Nathanael M. Cousins granted Bumble’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as to Wess, terminated Wess as an individual plaintiff, denied the motion as to absent out-of-state class members, declined to certify the order for interlocutory appeal, and granted both motions to seal.