Kelly v. Plaid Moose Inc., The

Background

Stephen P. Kelly, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Plaid Moose Inc., The, over events involving the Southgate Apartments in Slayton, Minnesota. Kelly alleged that, when he purchased coffee at the Plaid Moose on September 1, 2023, an employee named Tonya gave him a rental application for the apartments. He alleged that neither Plaid Moose nor Tonya was an authorized leasing agent, that Tonya pressured him to accept the application, and that she gave his telephone number to the Southgate property manager without his consent.

Kelly claimed that Plaid Moose acted as an unauthorized leasing agent and violated his privacy. He also alleged that he experienced religious discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and emotional hardship while living at Southgate Apartments, but Southgate Apartments was not named as a defendant. Kelly requested money damages and alleged that more than $75,000 was in dispute. He applied to proceed without prepaying court fees.

Jurisdiction and screening standard

The court found that it had diversity jurisdiction because Kelly alleged that he was a citizen of Wyoming, Plaid Moose was a citizen of Minnesota, and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

Because Kelly applied to proceed without prepaying fees, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). That law permits dismissal when a complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. The court accepted factual allegations as true and interpreted the complaint liberally because Kelly was representing himself, but explained that the complaint still had to include enough facts to make a legally valid claim plausible.

Analysis

The court rejected Kelly’s first claim because he did not explain how Plaid Moose’s alleged leasing activity violated Minnesota law or identify the Minnesota law supposedly violated. Although courts read self-represented complaints generously, they do not have to create claims that the complaint does not clearly raise.

The court also rejected Kelly’s privacy claim. Minnesota recognizes three general privacy torts: publicizing private facts, using someone’s name or likeness for one’s own benefit, and intruding on someone’s private affairs. The court found that Kelly did not plausibly plead any of them.

For the public-disclosure claim, Kelly alleged that his telephone number was given to one person—the Southgate property manager. The court held that communicating information to one person did not satisfy the required publicity standard. For the name-or-likeness claim, Kelly alleged no facts showing that Plaid Moose used his identity for its own benefit. For the intrusion claim, Kelly did not describe an intrusion into his private affairs, and the court expressed doubt that the alleged conduct would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

The court also disregarded Kelly’s allegations about discrimination, harassment, and intimidation at Southgate Apartments because that apartment complex was not a defendant and the allegations were conclusory.

Disposition

The court dismissed the entirety of the action without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The court separately denied Kelly’s application to proceed without prepaying fees as moot. The judgment was ordered entered accordingly.