Straw v. LinkedIn Corp.

Background

Andrew U.D. Straw filed an employment-discrimination complaint against LinkedIn Corp. He alleged that LinkedIn unlawfully closed his longstanding LinkedIn.com account because he complained about discrimination by his former employer, the Indiana Supreme Court. The opinion states that Straw is a lawyer and was representing himself.

Straw was permitted to proceed without paying filing fees, and the United States Marshals Service served LinkedIn. After LinkedIn moved to dismiss, Straw filed an amended complaint as permitted by the federal rules. The amended complaint added the State of Indiana and G. Michael Witte based on Straw’s claimed attempt to move two Indiana state-court cases to this federal court. Straw also asked the court to direct service of the amended complaint on Indiana and Witte.

Screening and attempted removal

Because Straw was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen his complaint. Screening permits dismissal at any time if a complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally valid claim, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from that relief.

The court held that Straw’s attempt to move the two Indiana state-court cases to this court through a notice or motion filed here was improper. Under the removal statute, a defendant seeking to move a state civil case to federal court must file the notice in the federal district and division where the state case is pending. The court noted that Straw had offered no authority allowing the Indiana cases to be moved to this court and that the opinion identified no basis for removal in this district.

The court said it was unclear whether Straw could state a claim against the State of Indiana or Witte over which this court could properly exercise jurisdiction and for which venue was proper. The court did not express an opinion on the merits of LinkedIn’s pending motion to dismiss because that motion had not been fully briefed.

Disposition

The court allowed Straw to file a second amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified in the order by February 16, 2023. The order stated that if he did not file one by that date, or if it failed to cure the defects concerning Indiana or Witte, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that those claims be dismissed and that his request for service on those defendants be denied.

The order did not itself dismiss the claims against Indiana or Witte, and it did not itself deny the request for service. The opinion also explains that, because the unserved defendants had not consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction, the magistrate judge could not issue a dispositive decision concerning claims against them.