PITTSBURGH – A federal judge has remanded an action brought by a pair of firearms businesses and their owners against Facebook and Instagram over the deletion of their accounts for expressing their political views in posts published on the social media apps, to the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge W. Scott Hardy granted in part and denied in part a motion to remand the case brought by Armslist, LLC, Torquelist, LLC, Jonathan Gibbon and N. Andrew Varney III against Facebook, Inc. and Instagram, LLC.
Hardy explained the suit alleged that the defendants’ Facebook and Instagram postings were “expressly political” and “made general statements reflecting conservative and libertarian attitudes towards firearms supportive of Second Amendment rights and criticisms of certain proposed gun control measures and the political figures supporting those measures.”
“[The plaintiffs] initially filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that defendants Facebook, Inc. and Instagram, LLC suppressed, suspended, and/or deleted their accounts on these social media platforms based upon political or ideological disapproval in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution. This initial complaint did not contain a demand for monetary damages,” Hardy said.
“On Dec. 2, 2021, and in response to defendants’ preliminary objections, plaintiffs filed and served a second amended complaint. In addition to re-alleging the original constitutional claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief (Count One), the SAC added claims for breach of contract (Count Two), unjust enrichment (Count Three) and promissory estoppel (Count Four) seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages in an amount not greater than $74,999.99, and attorneys’ fees and costs.”
On Dec. 30, 2021, less than 30 days after receiving the second amended complaint, the defendants filed a notice of removal seeking to invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a).
“The parties do not dispute their diversity of citizenship, but they do dispute whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 as required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. Plaintiffs consequently filed their pending motion for remand, contending that defendants’ notice of removal was untimely and that the amount in controversy is below the requisite statutory threshold to establish jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ motion also asks the Court to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction. Finally, plaintiffs seek an award of attorneys’ fees and costs,” Hardy said.
“For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that defendants did timely file their notice of removal, but that the amount in controversy does not exceed the $75,000 threshold required to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Additionally, the Court declines to award attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c).”
After discerning that the case was removed in a timely fashion, Hardy found that the defendants did not prove that damages in the case exceeded the federal court threshold of $75,000.
“A careful review of the second amended complaint reveals that the remedies plaintiffs seek at Count One are duplicative of the remedies they seek at Counts Two, Three, and Four, even though those remedies are derived from distinct legal theories. The Court finds that the amount in controversy is not enlarged by the inclusion of such overlapping remedies. Second, even if the equitable relief sought by plaintiffs at Count One is somehow distinct from and not subsumed by the various forms of relief sought pursuant to plaintiffs’ other claims, defendants nonetheless mistakenly presume a value for those claims at Count One that extends beyond the value of plaintiffs’ other claims and thus, when viewed in the aggregate, surpasses the jurisdictional threshold,” Hardy said.
“Third, in their attempt to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, defendants have proffered information, uncontroverted by plaintiffs, that Armslist charges between $3.99 and $6.99 per month for personal use memberships, and $30 per month for business/commercial use memberships, to argue that plaintiffs’ direct advertising and customer engagement on Facebook and Instagram could garner sufficient revenue-producing memberships to surpass $75,000 when considered in conjunction with the value of plaintiffs’ other claims. There simply is no evidentiary basis upon which the Court may conclude that plaintiffs’ stipulated amount in controversy is understated or otherwise incorrect. Consequently, defendants have not established by a preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 required to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court shall grant plaintiffs’ motion to remand this action to the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas.”
As to the concept of attorney’s fees, Hardy found that the plaintiffs’ request for such fees would be denied.
“Defendants ascertained, albeit incorrectly, that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 based upon the quantification of monetary damages that plaintiffs never articulated until filing the second amended complaint. The second amended complaint triggered defendants’ attempt at removal and provides an objectively reasonable basis upon which defendants sought to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, plaintiffs’ request for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs shall be denied,” Hardy ruled.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-01917
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com