Crittendon v. MULDROW

Background

Ajeenah Crittendon and EZ E-File Tax Preparers, Inc. sued Angelica Muldrow based on four comments Muldrow allegedly posted on the plaintiffs’ Facebook pages on January 30, 2022. The comments accused Crittendon and the company of stealing a customer’s Social Security number, harassing customers, having customers contact the police and seek restraining orders, and being a scam business. The amended complaint focused mainly on defamation but did not separately identify its claims for relief.

Anti-SLAPP motion

Muldrow filed a special motion to strike under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, commonly called an anti-SLAPP motion. The court applied the required two-step test. First, it found that Muldrow met her burden to show that the lawsuit arose from speech concerning an issue of public interest: the comments appeared intended to warn potential customers about the plaintiffs’ business practices. Second, the court found that the plaintiffs’ declaration explained why each statement was allegedly false and was enough to show some probability of success. The court therefore denied the special motion to strike, with prejudice.

Personal jurisdiction and venue

The court treated Muldrow’s arguments about insufficient contacts with California as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), which addresses personal jurisdiction. The court concluded that the alleged comments were intentional, were aimed at Northern California consumers, and allegedly caused reputational harm there. It denied that motion.

The court also treated Muldrow’s venue argument as a motion under Rule 12(b)(3). It concluded that venue was proper because the alleged injury occurred in the district and denied that motion as well.

Dismissal of the amended complaint

The court distinguished surviving an anti-SLAPP motion from adequately stating a claim under the federal pleading rules. It dismissed the amended complaint on its own initiative for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, with leave to amend. The court identified several problems: the complaint did not clearly state the claims for relief; its allegations that the statements were false were conclusory; explanations contained in a separate declaration were not included in the complaint itself; and several allegations about Muldrow’s mental health and prior legal actions appeared irrelevant to defamation.

The court also struck paragraphs 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17 under Rule 12(f)(1), which permits a court to remove redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous material from a pleading. Any amended complaint had to be filed within 21 days of the order’s entry. The order also admonished both sides not to include improper material in future pleadings. The opinion states that Muldrow was proceeding without a lawyer.