Loomer v. Tlaib

Background

Laura Loomer sued Rashida Harbi Tlaib over an August 2018 interaction at a campaign event in Minneapolis. Loomer was appearing without a lawyer. She alleged that Tlaib grabbed her cell phone, hit or battered her, and physically attacked her while Loomer questioned Tlaib about foreign-policy issues. The complaint asserted assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Loomer sought $500,000 in actual and compensatory damages and more than $2 million in punitive damages.

The court reviewed a video that Loomer incorporated into the complaint. It found two points of physical contact: Tlaib held Loomer’s hand while greeting her, and Tlaib took Loomer’s cell phone. Because Loomer did not allege contact beyond what appeared in the video, the court treated the complaint’s descriptions of the incident as characterizations of those two contacts.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act prohibits the government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion. The court held that Loomer could not establish government action because Tlaib was a candidate for the House of Representatives, rather than a federal official acting on behalf of the United States, when the incident occurred. The court rejected Loomer’s arguments that Tlaib was effectively a government actor because she was running unopposed, had previously been a state legislator, and attended the event to raise money for public office.

The court also held that Loomer had not alleged that the incident burdened her religious exercise. The video showed Loomer continuing to ask questions after the physical contact, and she was not prevented from speaking or removed from the event. The court therefore concluded that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim failed as a matter of law.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

Under Minnesota law, intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct, intentional or reckless conduct, emotional distress, and severe distress. The court held that Loomer had not plausibly alleged the required elements. It found that the video did not show outrageous behavior or an intent to cause severe emotional distress. The court also found that Loomer’s brief allegations of mental, physical, and emotional pain were labels and conclusions rather than sufficient factual allegations.

Jurisdiction over the remaining claims

After dismissing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim, the court held that federal-question jurisdiction no longer existed. It then considered diversity jurisdiction over the assault and battery claims. Although Loomer alleged damages exceeding $75,000, the court concluded that it was legally certain she could not recover that amount because she identified no specific injury from the alleged assault and battery that could theoretically support such an award. The court also noted that Loomer submitted no evidence or further argument supporting her claimed damages after Tlaib challenged them. The court therefore held that it lacked diversity jurisdiction.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, which is a federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims, over the assault and battery claims. It reasoned that the remaining claims depended solely on state law, the parties had not begun discovery, and the court had not spent substantial resources on the case.

Disposition

The court granted Tlaib’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims with prejudice. It dismissed the assault and battery claims without prejudice, leaving them available to pursue in state court. The court ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.