Brown v. Automattic

What the Order Decided

At an initial pretrial conference held on July 28, 2020, Dora I. Brown requested permission to file a second amended complaint. The court granted that request. It ordered Brown to file the second amended complaint by September 11, 2020.

Because Brown was proceeding without a lawyer, the court attached filing instructions and copies of the defendants’ prior pre-motion letters. The court gave the defendants until October 9, 2020, to notify the court whether they intended to file an answer or move to dismiss the second amended complaint.

Arguments in the Attached Defense Letters

The attached letters are party submissions, not rulings by the court. Automattic’s letter said the claims were unclear and appeared to involve the transfer of website content and a domain name. It identified fraud in the initial complaint and references to copyright and trademark rights in the amended complaint, and stated that Automattic intended to seek dismissal for failure to state a claim or request a more definite statement.

Bluehost’s letter said the amended complaint contained no factual allegations or claim of wrongdoing against Bluehost. It asked that Bluehost be dismissed with prejudice and argued that the complaint did not adequately allege fraud or meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. Twitter’s letter similarly said the amended complaint contained no factual allegations or causes of action against Twitter and asked that Twitter be dismissed with prejudice.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The order did not decide whether Brown’s claims were legally sufficient, whether any defendant should be dismissed, whether the court had jurisdiction, or whether the defendants’ other arguments were correct. It only granted leave to amend and set deadlines. Judge Katherine Polk Failla signed the order.