Ensing v. Sephora USA, Inc.

Background

Amanda Ensing alleged that she was a beauty and lifestyle influencer who had worked with Sephora. After Ensing posted several tweets on January 6, 2021, and later posted a Sephora-sponsored YouTube video, people criticized her online. Sephora then stated that it was ending its programming with Ensing because of her alleged conduct concerning the violence at the U.S. Capitol. Ensing also alleged that Deborah Yeh, Sephora’s chief marketing officer, sent an email to Sephora employees referring to racially insensitive and discriminatory language and statements that made light of the violence.

Ensing sued Sephora, Yeh, and unidentified defendants. Her claims were for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, tortious interference with contractual relations, tortious interference with a prospective business relationship, and conspiracy. Sephora and Yeh moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court held that Ensing did not make the required initial showing that Tennessee could exercise personal jurisdiction over Sephora and Yeh. Personal jurisdiction concerns a court’s authority over a defendant. For specific jurisdiction, the defendants’ own conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum state, and the plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendants and that state.

The court found insufficient Ensing’s evidence that she entered into the one-time contract for a single video while living in Tennessee, that some Tennessee residents read the alleged defamatory statements, and that the defendants knew she lived in Tennessee. The court said those facts did not show specific conduct by the defendants directed at Tennessee. It also found that the one-time video contract was not comparable to the extensive business relationships that had supported jurisdiction in other cases. The court further concluded that Ensing had not shown that the defendants’ statements were specifically directed at Tennessee rather than at their social-media followers generally.

The court denied Ensing’s request for jurisdictional discovery, finding that discovery was not warranted at that stage.

Transfer and Disposition

Because the court found that it lacked personal jurisdiction, it considered whether to transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. The defendants conceded that personal jurisdiction existed in the Northern District of California, where the court stated that Sephora and Yeh reside. The court found no evidence or argument that Ensing had acted in bad faith by filing in Tennessee and concluded that the interest of justice favored transfer.

The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion in part, found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over them, and transferred the case to the Northern District of California. It did not reach the defendants’ arguments about the merits of Ensing’s claims.