Lopes v. Reddit, Inc.

Background

This order concerns Cornelius Lopes’s second amended complaint, filed April 30, 2021, against Reddit, Inc., and others. The court said the complaint was written in narrative form and did not clearly distinguish among the claims or identify which defendants were involved in each claim.

The complaint referred to possible claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Federal Wiretap Act, the Lanham Act, and the Copyright Act. It also asserted claims involving defamation, slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and the right to publicity. The opinion states that these latter claims arise under state law.

Pleading format

The court found that the complaint did not comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires a short and plain statement of the grounds for jurisdiction, the claim showing entitlement to relief, and the requested relief. Rule 10 generally requires claims and defenses to be set out in numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph limited as far as practical to one set of circumstances.

The court noted that the complaint was not formatted in numbered paragraphs, that some paragraphs appeared to cover multiple claims, and that misspellings made it unclear who some alleged defendants were. The court recommended organizing the amended complaint under headings for the parties, jurisdiction, venue, facts, claims, and requested relief, with each claim tied to the relevant circumstances and defendants.

Subject-matter jurisdiction

Subject-matter jurisdiction is a federal court’s legal authority to hear a case. The court explained that federal jurisdiction can arise when the United States is a party, when the complaint presents a federal question, or when there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and more than $75,000 is in dispute.

The court concluded that it could not establish subject-matter jurisdiction from the second amended complaint. The United States was not a party. Although Lopes referred to several federal statutes, he had not clearly established a claim arising under federal law. Because he had not established a federal claim, the court also could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court further stated that Lopes had not shown complete diversity of citizenship or alleged an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.

Potential federal claims

For a Lanham Act claim, the court explained that a plaintiff must allege ownership of a valid, protectable trademark and use of the mark in a way likely to cause confusion. The court found that Lopes had not sufficiently alleged ownership of such a trademark or clearly identified which defendant used the mark in a commercially confusing manner.

For a copyright claim, the court explained that a plaintiff must allege ownership of a valid copyright and copying of original elements of the work. The court found that Lopes had not clearly alleged either requirement.

For claims under the Federal Wiretap Act, the court explained that a plaintiff may allege intentional interception of a protected communication or disclosure of communication contents obtained in violation of the Act. The court found that Lopes had not clearly identified which defendants allegedly intercepted oral communications in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy or which defendants allegedly disclosed unlawfully obtained communications.

For a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court explained that the alleged conduct must be committed by a person acting under color of state law and must violate a federal constitutional or statutory right. Although Lopes referred to the First Amendment, the court found that he had not shown that any defendant was a state actor. As a result, the court could not determine that the complaint established federal-question jurisdiction on that basis.

Order

The court ordered Lopes to revise his amended complaint to comply with Rules 8 and 10 and to establish why the court has subject-matter jurisdiction by July 6, 2021. The court-management conference was postponed from June 30, 2021, to August 4, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., by telephone, and the case-management statement was due July 28, 2021.

The court did not dismiss the case in this order. It stated that it would recommend dismissal if Lopes could not establish jurisdiction through valid federal claims or diversity jurisdiction. The court also stated that, if the case were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Lopes could still file his state-law claims in state court.