Bailon v. Pollen Presents

Background

Jolie Bailon attended the “Justin Bieber & Friends Weekender” in Las Vegas from October 7 through October 10, 2021. She purchased a premium package from Pollen Presents that included hotel accommodations provided by Wynn Resorts Holdings LLC and Wynn Resorts Limited. Bailon alleged that promotional materials created expectations about Justin Bieber’s participation, a sound check, a question-and-answer session, front-row views, performances, food and beverages, and other event benefits. She alleged that several advertised benefits were not provided, that her VIP benefits were not honored, and that Bieber performed for about one hour without holding the promised sound check or question-and-answer session.

Bailon, who was representing herself, sued Pollen Presents, Wynn Resorts Holdings LLC, Wynn Resorts Limited, Justin Bieber, and Scooter Braun Projects LLC. Her claims included state-law and common-law claims such as false advertising, fraud, and breach of contract, along with claims under the Lanham Act and Clayton Act. Wynn moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Bieber moved under Rule 12(b)(6). Pollen and Braun had not been properly served and had not appeared.

Wynn’s Personal-Jurisdiction Ruling

The court held that Bailon had not alleged facts establishing personal jurisdiction over Wynn under New York’s long-arm statute. Under the provision concerning business transactions in New York, Bailon had to show that Wynn transacted business in New York and that her claims arose from that activity. The court found that the complaint alleged promotional activity by Pollen and the purchase of a package from Pollen, but did not allege that Wynn itself took specific action in New York. A general assertion that Wynn conspired with or acted through Pollen was not enough.

The court also considered the provision concerning an out-of-state tort that causes injury in New York. It concluded that Bailon’s injury first occurred in Las Vegas, where she experienced the alleged disappointment and emotional distress at the event, rather than in New York. Because Bailon did not establish a statutory basis for personal jurisdiction, the court did not decide the separate constitutional due-process question. The court granted Wynn’s motion to dismiss and dismissed Bailon’s claims against Wynn without prejudice because of the lack of personal jurisdiction.

Bieber’s Federal Claims

The court dismissed Bailon’s Lanham Act claim against Bieber. The Lanham Act claim at issue protects commercial interests in sales or business reputation, and the court found that Bailon alleged injuries as a consumer and event attendee, not commercial injuries of the type required for that claim.

The court also dismissed any Clayton Act claim. It treated Bailon’s references to the Clayton Act and Sherman Act in an earlier amended pleading as an attempt to invoke the Clayton Act’s private right to sue, but found that the operative complaint did not allege facts showing that Bieber participated in monopolistic activity. The court therefore dismissed the Lanham Act and Clayton Act claims against Bieber with prejudice.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and State Claims

The court found no remaining basis for federal-question jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claims. It also found that Bailon had not established diversity jurisdiction because she did not allege a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Her complaint identified a $1,699 hotel package and other expenses, and she had told the court that she spent about $15,000 on the trip. The court found those amounts, even with the requested inflation and interest, were below the jurisdictional threshold. It also found that her general allegations of emotional distress and punitive damages were too uncertain to establish the required amount.

Because the federal claims were dismissed and diversity jurisdiction was not established, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority over related state-law claims, over Bailon’s remaining state claims against Bieber. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Pollen and Braun

The court did not dismiss Bailon’s claims against Pollen or Braun at this stage. Instead, it ordered Bailon to attempt proper service on both parties within 30 days. If she failed to do so, she would have to show good cause for the failure and explain why the claims against those parties should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve.

Disposition

The court granted Wynn’s and Bieber’s motions to dismiss. It dismissed Bailon’s claims against Wynn without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction; dismissed her Lanham Act and Clayton Act claims against Bieber with prejudice; and dismissed the remaining state claims against Bieber without prejudice because there was no basis for diversity jurisdiction and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction. The opinion did not rule on the merits of the remaining claims against Pollen or Braun, and it did not reach the defendants’ venue arguments.