Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 54-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 1 of 22
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`KAREN HEPP
`
`v.
`FACEBOOK, INC., et al.
`
`Civ. Action No: 2:19-cv-04034-JMY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW BY DEFENDANT REDDIT, INC. IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Dated: March 3, 2020
`
`
`
`DURIE TANGRI LLP
`JOSEPH C. GRATZ (Pro hac vice)
`VERA RANIERI (Pro hac vice)
`ADITYA V. KAMDAR (Pro hac vice)
`217 Leidesdorff Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL PUDLIN &
`SCHILLER
`Bonnie M. Hoffman
`Thomas N. Brown
`One Logan Square, 27th Floor
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Reddit, Inc.
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 54-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 2 of 22
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`PLAINTIFF’S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REDDIT’S ALLEGEDLY
`TORTIOUS CONDUCT .....................................................................................................1
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................2
`A.
`This Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction Over Reddit ...............................................2
`B.
`Plaintiff Has Failed to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted ............6
`1.
`Plaintiff’s Claims Are Barred by the Applicable Statute of Limitations .....7
`2.
`Plaintiff’s Claims Are Barred by Section 230 of the Communications
`Decency Act ...............................................................................................14
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 54-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 3 of 22
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ackourey v. Sonellas Custom Tailors,
`573 Fed. App’x. 208 (3d Cir. 2014)...........................................................................................9
`
`Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court,
`480 U.S. 102 (1987) ...................................................................................................................8
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...........................................................................................................10, 11
`
`Blair v. Nevada Landing Partnership,
`859 N.E.2d 1188 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) ......................................................................................16
`
`In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig.,
`114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997).............................................................................................12, 13
`
`Calder v. Jones,
`465 U.S. 783 (1984) ...............................................................................................................8, 9
`
`Coviello v. Berkley Publishing Group,
`No. 1:15-cv-01812, 2017 WL 891323 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 19, 2017) ......................................16, 17
`
`Crossroads Technologies, Inc. v. Achieve Servs. Holdings, LLC,
`No. 19-cv-0955, 2019 WL 5862161 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2019) ...................................................9
`
`Cusano v. Klein,
`264 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................................16
`
`Daimler AG v. Bauman,
`571 U.S. 117 (2014) ...................................................................................................................7
`
`DiMeo v. Max,
`433 F. Supp. 2d 523 (E.D. Pa. 2006), aff’d, 248 F. App’x 280 (3d Cir. 2007) .......................18
`
`Facenda v. N.F.L. Films, Inc.,
`488 F. Supp. 2d 491 (E.D. Pa. 2007), aff’d in part and vacated in part, 541
`F.3d 1007 (3d Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................................11
`
`Fine v. Checcio,
`870 A.2d 850 (Pa. 2005) ..........................................................................................................16
`
`Green v. America Online,
`318 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. 2003).....................................................................................................18
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 54-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 4 of 22
`
`IMO Indus., Inc. v. Kiekert AG,
`155 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 1998)...................................................................................................8, 9
`
`Lewis v. Marriott Int’l, Inc.,
`527 F. Supp. 2d 422 (E.D. Pa. 2007) .......................................................................................11
`
`Long v. Walt Disney Co.,
`10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 836 (Cal Ct. App. 2014) ................................................................................16
`
`Lutz v. Rakuten,
`376 F. Supp. 3d 455 (E.D. Pa. 2019) ...................................................................................8, 10
`
`Marten v. Godwin,
`499 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 2007).......................................................................................................8
`
`Metcalfe v. Renaissance Marine, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 2009).......................................................................................................7
`
`Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc.,
`591 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................................18
`
`O’Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., Ltd.,
`496 F.3d 312 (3d Cir. 2007)...................................................................................................6, 7
`
`Pace v. Baker-White,
`__ F. Supp. 3d __, No.19-4827, 2020 WL 134316 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 2020) ..........................12
`
`Parker v. PayPal, Inc.,
`No. 16-4786, 2017 WL 3508759 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 2017) ....................................................19
`
`Pearce v. Karpeles,
`No. 18-306, 2019 WL 3409495 (E.D. Pa. July 26, 2019) .........................................................9
`
`Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc.,
`998 F.2d 1192 (3d Cir. 1993)...................................................................................................10
`
`Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC,
`488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007) ...........................................................................................19, 20
`
`In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC,
`690 F.3d 161 (3d Cir. 2012).....................................................................................................14
`
`Phillips v. World Pub. Co.,
`822 F. Supp. 2d 1114 (W.D. Wash. 2011) ...............................................................................16
`
`Rifai v. CMS Medical Care Corp.,
`No. 15-1395, 2016 WL 739279 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 25, 2016) ...........................................11, 14, 17
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 54-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 5 of 22
`
`Rivell v. Private Health Care Systems, Inc.,
`887 F. Supp. 2d 12777 (S.D. Ga. 2012) ...................................................................................16
`
`Rivera v. Bally’s Park Place, Inc.,
`798 F. Supp. 2d. 611 (E.D. Pa. 2011) ......................................................................................10
`
`Russel v. Delaware Online,
`No. 15-794-SLR, 2016 WL 3437597 (D. Del. June 20, 2016) ................................................12
`
`Schmidt v. Skolas,
`770 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2014).....................................................................................................17
`
`Slozer v. Slattery,
`No. 2566 EDA 2014, 2015 WL 7282971 (Sup. Ct. Pa. Nov. 18, 2015) ..................................14
`
`Syncsort Inc. v. Sequential Software Inc.,
`50 F. Supp. 2d 318, 325 (D.N.J. 1999) ..............................................................................12, 13
`
`The Choice Is Yours, Inc. v. The Choice Is Yours,
`No. 2:14-cv-01804, 2015 WL 5584302 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 21, 2015) ..........................................11
`
`Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A.,
`318 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 2003).................................................................................................9, 10
`
`Trombetta v. Novocin,
`414 F. Supp. 3d 625 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)......................................................................................16
`
`Valencia v. Universal City Studios,
`No. 1:14-cv-00528-RWS, 2012 WL 7240526 (N.D. Ga. 2014) ..............................................16
`
`Wolk v. Olson,
`730 F. Supp. 2d 376 (E.D. Pa. 2010) .................................................................................16, 17
`
`Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.,
`952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) ...........................................................................................9
`
`Statutes
`
`42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(b) ............................................................................................................7
`
`42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5523 ...............................................................................................................11
`
`42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524(7) ..........................................................................................................11
`
`42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8316 ...........................................................................................................5, 11
`
`42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8341 .........................................................................................................14, 16
`
`47 U.S.C. § 230 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 54-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 6 of 22
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A) ................................................................................................................7
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)................................................................................................................5, 6
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)..............................................................................................................5, 10
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B) ............................................................................................................13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 54-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 7 of 22
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendant Reddit, Inc. (“Reddit”) moves to dismiss the two causes of action Plaintiff
`
`Karen Hepp has brought against Reddit under Pennsylvania law: a statutory claim for violating
`
`42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8316 and a common-law claim for violating the right of publicity. Reddit
`
`moves under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6), for lack of personal
`
`jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, respectively.
`
`Reddit previously moved to dismiss Plaintiff Karen Hepp’s Complaint. See ECF No. 46.
`
`In response, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. See ECF No. 50. But the Amended
`
`Complaint fails to cure the problems Reddit raised in its previous motion, demonstrating the
`
`futility of Plaintiff’s claims.
`
`As a threshold matter, this Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Reddit, which
`
`operates a website (located at https://www.reddit.com) where users around the world post and
`
`comment on links and content within user-managed communities generally organized around
`
`their interests. Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient minimum contacts with Pennsylvania relating
`
`to her claims against Reddit that would allow this Court to exercise jurisdiction over Reddit.
`
`Even if this Court were to find Reddit is appropriately haled into this Court, Plaintiff’s
`
`claims should be dismissed. As can be seen from the allegations in Plaintiff’s Amended
`
`Complaint, Plaintiff’s claims against Reddit for violating Pennsylvania’s statutory and common
`
`law rights of publicity are barred by the applicable statute of limitations and preempted by
`
`Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
`
`II.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REDDIT’S
`ALLEGEDLY TORTIOUS CONDUCT
`
`As alleged in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Karen Hepp lives and works in
`
`Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Am. Compl., ECF No. 50, ¶¶ 6, 37. Defendant Reddit, Inc. is a
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 54-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 8 of 22
`
`
`
`corporation organized under the laws of Delaware. Am. Compl. ¶ 20.
`
`Plaintiff alleges that approximately two years ago, Plaintiff realized a photograph of her
`
`taken in a convenience store located in New York City had been posted in several places online,
`
`including on the website Imgur, which is not operated by Reddit. Am. Compl. ¶ 43, 45, 47. She
`
`alleges that the photograph on Imgur is located at the URL https://i.imgur.com/0lulkf2.jpg, and
`
`she attaches a printout of that page to her Amended Complaint. Am. Compl. ¶ 47, Ex. M.
`
`Exhibit M does not identify Plaintiff by name. Am. Compl., Ex. M.
`
`Plaintiff also alleges that a user named pepsi_next posted a hyperlink on Reddit in a
`
`subgroup on Reddit called r/obsf that linked to the Imgur page included as Exhibit C. Am.
`
`Compl. ¶ 48. The Reddit post was located at the URL
`
`https://www.reddit.com/r/obsf/comments/5owd59/amazing/dcnh8wj/. Id. The Amended
`
`Complaint alleges that “[a] true and correct copy of said photograph within the Reddit website is
`
`attached hereto” as Exhibit N. Id. Exhibit N is a screenshot of the allegedly tortious Reddit post,
`
`followed by several pages, one of which includes a color version of the photograph in suit. Am.
`
`Compl., Ex. N. Exhibit N does not identify Plaintiff by name. Id.
`
`Plaintiff filed her original Complaint on September 4, 2019, ECF No. 1, and her
`
`Amended Complaint on February 18, 2020, ECF No. 50.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`This Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction Over Reddit
`
`A.
`Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that this Court has personal jurisdiction over
`
`Reddit. O’Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., Ltd., 496 F.3d 312, 316 (3d Cir. 2007). In deciding
`
`Reddit’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion, Plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, and all factual disputes
`
`are drawn in Plaintiff’s favor. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 54-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 9 of 22
`
`
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1)(A), this Court exercises personal
`
`jurisdiction as allowed by Pennsylvania law. Id. Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute, which
`
`provides for the bases of personal jurisdiction over nonresidents, allows for personal jurisdiction
`
`“based on the most minimum contact with th[e] Commonwealth allowed under the Constitution
`
`of the United States.” 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(b). “Minimum contacts can be analyzed in the
`
`context of general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction.” Metcalfe v. Renaissance Marine, Inc.,
`
`566 F.3d 324, 334 (3d Cir. 2009).
`
`In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges this Court has specific jurisdiction1 over
`
`Reddit. As a result, the burden is on Plaintiff to show that Reddit’s contacts with
`
`Pennsylvania—if any—“give rise or relate to the plaintiff’s claim[s].” O’Connor, 496 F.3d at
`
`321. Due process requires that Reddit have “certain minimum contacts with . . . [Pennsylvania]
`
`such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and
`
`substantial justice.” O’Connor, 496 F.3d at 316 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted) (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). A defendant has
`
`“minimum contacts” with a state when the defendant “purposely avails itself of the privilege of
`
`conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its
`
`
`1 In her statement of jurisdiction, Plaintiff has once again not alleged general jurisdiction over
`Reddit. See Am. Compl. ¶ 4; compare with Compl., ¶ 4 (same). Reddit noted this lack of any
`assertion of general jurisdiction in its previous Motion to Dismiss. See Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to
`Dismiss, ECF No. 46-1, at 3 n.1. As Reddit previously noted, for this Court to have general
`jurisdiction over Reddit, Reddit’s contacts with Pennsylvania need to be “so continuous and
`systematic as to render [it] essentially at home in” Pennsylvania. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571
`U.S. 117, 127 (2014) (cleaned up). For a nonresident corporation like Reddit, the “paradigm”
`forums for general jurisdiction are its place of incorporation or its principal place of business. Id.
`at 137. Reddit is a Delaware corporation, see Am. Compl. ¶ 20, and its principal place of
`business is in California. Plaintiff has not made any allegation, whether in her original
`Complaint or the Amended Complaint, that Reddit is subject to the general jurisdiction of this
`Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 54-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 10 of 22
`
`
`
`laws.” Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 109 (1987) (citation
`
`omitted).
`
`Where, as here, the claims relate to an intentional tort, courts apply the Calder effects test
`
`to assess whether a plaintiff has adequately demonstrated personal jurisdiction. Lutz v. Rakuten,
`
`376 F. Supp. 3d 455, 466 (E.D. Pa. 2019) (citing Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984)). Under
`
`Calder, the burden is on Plaintiff to establish personal jurisdiction by showing: (1) Reddit
`
`committed an intentional tort; (2) Plaintiff felt the brunt of the harm in the forum such that the
`
`forum can be said to be the focal point of the harm suffered by Plaintiff as a result of that tort; (3)
`
`Reddit expressly aimed the tortious conduct at the forum such that the forum can be said to be
`
`the focal point of the tortious activity. Marten v. Godwin, 499 F.3d 290, 297 (3d Cir. 2007).
`
`“Only if the ‘expressly aimed’ element of the effects test is met [do courts] consider the other
`
`two elements.” Id. (citing IMO Indus., Inc. v. Kiekert AG, 155 F.3d 254, 266 (3d Cir. 1998)). To
`
`satisfy this third prong, Plaintiff must demonstrate that Reddit “knew that the plaintiff would
`
`suffer the brunt of the harm caused by the tortious conduct in the forum, and point to specific
`
`activity indicating that the defendant expressly aimed its tortious conduct at the forum.” IMO
`
`Indus., 155 F.3d at 266.
`
`Here, Plaintiff has not alleged that Reddit knew that she would suffer harm in
`
`Pennsylvania and has not alleged that Reddit expressly aimed any tortious activity at
`
`Pennsylvania. See Am. Compl. ¶ 4 (including allegations that Reddit avails itself of conducting
`
`activities in this jurisdiction, but not including any allegation that Reddit aimed any of the
`
`allegedly tortious activity at Pennsylvania). While Plaintiff may have discovered the photograph
`
`when in Pennsylvania, the “mere allegation that the plaintiff feels the effect of the defendant’s
`
`tortious conduct in the forum because the plaintiff is located there is insufficient to satisfy
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 54-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 11 of 22
`
`
`
`Calder.” IMO Industries, 155 F.3d at 263. Plaintiff does not point to any specific activity that
`
`indicates that Reddit targeted its allegedly tortious conduct at Pennsylvania. For example,
`
`Plaintiff does not allege that the user who posted the link or the part of Reddit where the link was
`
`posted have any connection with Pennsylvania. Plaintiff does not allege that any information
`
`contained on the page shown in Exhibit N relates to Pennsylvania. Plaintiff has also not alleged
`
`that the page that hosted the material, https://i.imgur.com/0lulkf2.jpg and attached as Exhibit M,
`
`has any connection or material specifically directed at Pennsylvania. Because Plaintiff has not
`
`demonstrated that this forum is the focal point of the tortious activity, this Court has no personal
`
`jurisdiction over Reddit under Calder.
`
`When determining whether internet-based corporations have sufficient minimum contacts
`
`with a forum, courts in the Third Circuit and in this district have also looked to the sliding-scale
`
`test first laid out in Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119, 1123–
`
`24 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (“Zippo”). See, e.g., Ackourey v. Sonellas Custom Tailors, 573 Fed. App’x.
`
`208, 211 (3d Cir. 2014); Pearce v. Karpeles, No. 18-306, 2019 WL 3409495, at *5 (E.D. Pa.
`
`July 26, 2019). The Zippo test looks to the “level of interactivity and commercial nature of the
`
`exchange of information that occurs on the Web site” to determine whether personal jurisdiction
`
`exists. Zippo, 952 F. Supp. at 1124.
`
`But even under the Zippo test, for a court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction,
`
`Plaintiff “must also show that the claim arises out of or is related to at least one of those
`
`activities” that was purposefully directed at the forum. Crossroads Technologies, Inc. v. Achieve
`
`Servs. Holdings, LLC, No. 19-cv-0955, 2019 WL 5862161, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2019); see
`
`also Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446, 454 (3d Cir. 2003) (restating
`
`requirements for personal jurisdiction over websites); Zippo, 952 F. Supp. at 1122–23, 27 (noting
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 54-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 12 of 22
`
`
`
`that the claim must arise out of the forum contacts, and applying that standard to the allegations).
`
`“Under the law of this Circuit . . . a plaintiff must establish at least a but-for causal relationship
`
`between [her] claims and the defendant’s alleged contacts with the forum state to satisfy the
`
`relatedness requirement of specific personal jurisdiction.” Rivera v. Bally’s Park Place, Inc.,
`
`798 F. Supp. 2d. 611, 617 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (citing O’Connor, 496 F.3d at 322).
`
`Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not allege that the litigation “arises out of or is
`
`related to” Reddit’s Pennsylvania contacts, and Reddit’s Pennsylvania contacts are a red herring.
`
`Plaintiff alleges that Reddit has two Pennsylvania connections: a user-created, user-moderated
`
`subgroup called r/philadelphia, Am. Compl. ¶ 24, Ex. F, and advertisements targeted at
`
`Pennsylvanians, Am. Compl. ¶ 25. Neither of these contacts are related to Plaintiff’s claims—let
`
`alone a but-for cause of Plaintiff’s claims—and thus basing jurisdiction on these contacts does
`
`not follow. Rivera, 798 F. Supp. 2d at 617. Without demonstrating this “basic nexus,” Plaintiff
`
`has failed to show that this Court has jurisdiction over Reddit. Toys “R” Us, 318 F.3d at 454;
`
`see also Lutz, 376 F. Supp. 3d at 465-66 (finding no jurisdiction where there were no allegations
`
`or facts in the record suggesting claims arose out of defendant’s contact with the forum).
`
`Plaintiff Has Failed to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted
`
`B.
`Even if this Court were to find that it had personal jurisdiction over Reddit, Plaintiff’s
`
`claims against Reddit should be dismissed as she has failed to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`12(b)(6). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, this Court may “generally consider only the
`
`allegations contained in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint and matters of public
`
`record.” Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir.
`
`1993). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
`
`accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
`
`U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 54-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 13 of 22
`
`
`
`complaint does not suffice if it “tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.”
`
`Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557) (cleaned up).
`
`Under this standard, Plaintiff fails to state a claim at least because Plaintiff’s claims are
`
`barred by the applicable statute of limitations and Reddit is immunized from Plaintiff’s claims by
`
`Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“Section 230”), 47 U.S.C. § 230.
`
`Plaintiff’s Claims Are Barred by the Applicable Statute of Limitations
`
`1.
`A claim for a violation of the right of publicity in Pennsylvania,2 whether under statute or
`
`common law, is subject to at most3 a two-year statute of limitations. See Rifai v. CMS Medical
`
`Care Corp., Civ. No. 15-1395, 2016 WL 739279, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 25, 2016) (citing 42 Pa.
`
`Cons. Stat. § 5524(7), the catchall statute of limitations).
`
`The Reddit post forming the basis of Plaintiff’s claims against Reddit was made more
`
`than two years prior to the filing of the original Complaint, and therefore the statute of
`
`limitations has run. Exhibit N, attached to the Amended Complaint and therefore appropriately
`
`considered, shows that the Reddit post was made “2 years ago”:
`
`
`2 Reddit assumes, for purposes of this motion to dismiss only, that Pennsylvania’s common law
`right of publicity is a separate claim from Pennsylvania’s statutory right of publicity, 42 Pa.
`Cons. Stat. § 8316. Courts are split as to whether the statutory right of publicity “subsumed” the
`common law cause of action. Compare Facenda v. N.F.L. Films, Inc., 488 F. Supp. 2d 491, 514
`(E.D. Pa. 2007), aff’d in part and vacated in part, 541 F.3d 1007 (3d Cir. 2008) and Facenda,
`541 F.3d at 1013 n.2 (concurring in dicta) with Lewis v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 2d 422,
`429 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (concluding the opposite).
`3 For purposes of deciding this motion to dismiss, this Court does not need to decide whether the
`two causes of actions are governed by the one-year invasion of privacy limitations, 42 Pa. Cons.
`Stat. § 5523, see The Choice Is Yours, Inc. v. The Choice Is Yours, No. 2:14-cv-01804, 2015 WL
`5584302, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 21, 2015), or the two-year tort limitation, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat.
`§ 5524(7), Rifai v. CMS Medical Care Corp., No. 15-1395, 2016 WL 739279, at *2 (E.D. Pa.
`Feb. 25, 2016). The statute of limitations is at most two years.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 54-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 14 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`Am. Compl., Ex. N (annotated, excerpted); compare with Compl., Ex. D (similarly showing
`
`Reddit post from “2 years ago”). Plaintiff may try to argue that this date is ambiguous. But
`
`because the “statements of which Plaintiff complains are found on the [] website and that the
`
`website is relied upon in the Complaint,” this Court should consider the entirety of the “relevant
`
`pages of the website . . . in deciding this motion to dismiss.” Pace v. Baker-White, __ F. Supp.
`
`3d __, No. 19-4827, 2020 WL 134316, at *1 n.4 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 2020) (citing In re Burlington
`
`Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997) (“a document integral to or
`
`explicitly relied upon in the complaint may be considered”)); see also Russel v. Delaware
`
`Online, No. 15-794-SLR, 2016 WL 3437597, at *1 n.1 (D. Del. June 20, 2016) (applying In re
`
`Burlington Coat Factory to consider the entirety of press releases that were excerpted and
`
`formed the basis of plaintiff’s claims for defamation, libel, and personal injury). As explained in
`
`Syncsort Inc. v. Sequential Software Inc.:
`
`The failure of a nonmovant to attach or cite documents in the
`complaint or counterclaim does not preclude a review of the texts
`of such extrinsic documents in conjunction with a motion to
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 54-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 15 of 22
`
`
`
`dismiss. The reason for this rule is to prevent the situation in
`which a claimant is able to maintain a claim by extracting an
`isolated statement from a document and placing it in the complaint,
`even though if the statement were examined in the full context of
`the document, it would be clear that the statement was not
`actionable.
`
`50 F. Supp. 2d 318, 325-26 (D.N.J. 1999) (cleaned up); see also In re Burlington Coat Factory,
`
`114 F.3d at 1426.
`
`As shown by the attached Declaration of Dr. Tyler Otto, the allegedly tortious post
`
`appeared on Reddit on January 19, 2017. Decl. of Dr. Tyler Otto ¶ 7. This date would be readily
`
`available to any user who visited the Reddit post shown in Exhibit N. Id. The two-year statute
`
`of limitations thus ran out no later than January 19, 2019—well before Plaintiff filed her original
`
`Complaint on September 4, 2019. See Compl., ECF No. 1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B).
`
`
`
`Even if the Court does not consider the full context of the Reddit post on a motion to
`
`dismiss, the statute of limitations began accruing on December 13, 2015, when the photograph in
`
`question was uploaded to Imgur. Am. Compl. ¶ 47, Ex. M. Exhibit M, also appropriately
`
`considered, on its face includes a date of upload, shown below in an annotated excerpt:
`
`Am. Compl., Ex. M (annotated, excerpted).
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 54-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 16 of 22
`
`
`
`Plaintiff cannot allege more recent circulation through a link on Reddit constitutes a
`
`separate publication that restarts the statute of limitation period. Pennsylvania has adopted the
`
`“single publication rule,” which holds that the original publication “and not the circulation of it”
`
`results in the cause of action—and triggers the applicable statute of limitations. Rifai, 2016 WL
`
`739279, at *2 (quoting In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, 690 F.3d 161, 174 (3d Cir. 2012))
`
`(applying single publication rule to right of publicity claim). This rule is codified at 42 Pa. Cons.
`
`Stat. § 8341 (“No person shall have more than one cause of action for damages for libel or
`
`slander, or invasion of privacy, or any other tort founded upon a single publication . . . .”)
`
`(emphasis added). In Rifai, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s right of publicity claim when it
`
`was filed over two years after the original publication, despite the fact that the publication had
`
`circulated again more recently. Id. at *3.
`
`The statute of limitations also does not restart each time a party links to publicly
`
`accessible material previously published on the internet. See In re Philadelphia Newspapers,
`
`690 F.3d at 174; see also Slozer v. Slattery, No. 2566 EDA 2014, 2015 WL 7282971, at *6 (Sup.
`
`Ct. Pa. Nov. 18, 2015) (agreeing with Third Circuit’s application of Pennsylvania law). The
`
`Third Circuit has held that online linking is not republication. In re Philadelphia Newspapers,
`
`690 F.3d. at 175. “If each link . . . were an act of republication, the statute of limitations would
`
`be retriggered endlessly and its effectiveness essentially eliminated . . . .” Id. Plaintiff’s
`
`Amended Complaint alleges a Reddit user linked to an Imgur post. Am. Compl. ¶ 48. As shown
`
`below in two annotated excerpts of Exhibit N, this is the same Imgur post that was published
`
`outside the statute of limitations period:
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 54-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 17 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Am. Compl., Ex. N (annotated, excerpted); compare with Am. Compl. ¶ 47 (alleging that the Imgur
`
`post is found at i.imgur.com/0lulkf2.jpg). The Reddit post’s link to the December 2015 Imgur
`
`post did not restart the statute of limitations, even if the Reddit post were within the limitations
`
`period.
`
`Plaintiff may argue that the “discovery rule” applies, but she would be incorrect. The
`
`discovery rule, which tolls the statute of limitations for certain causes of action if “a party neither
`
`knows nor reasonably should have known of [her] injury and its cause at the time [her] right to
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 54-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 18 of 22
`
`
`
`institute suit arises,” does not apply here. Fine v. Checcio, 870 A.2d 850, 859 (Pa. 2005). Courts
`
`generally reject the application of the discovery rule to right of publicity cases as contrary to the
`
`single-publication rule.4 Though no Pennsylvania or Third Circuit court has applied the discovery
`
`rule in this specific type of case, several courts in this Circuit—including in this District—have
`
`similarly rejected the discovery rule in the context of defamation claims relating to statements in
`
`popular or mass media. See Wolk v. Olson, 730 F. Supp. 2d 376, 378–79 (E.D. Pa. 2010) (citing
`
`cases).
`
`The discovery rule is inapplicable to toll Plaintiff’s right of publicity