Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 55-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 1 of 30
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-04034
`
`Hon. John Milton Younge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`KAREN HEPP,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., IMGUR, INC.,
`REDDIT, INC., GIPHY, INC., WGCZ
`S.R.O and DOES 1-10,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANT GIPHY, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 55-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 2 of 30
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS .....................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Giphy........................................................................................................................2
`
`Plaintiff’s Allegations ..............................................................................................3
`
`III.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BECAUSE
`IT LACKS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER GIPHY .................................................4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Legal Standard .........................................................................................................4
`
`This Court Lacks General Jurisdiction Over Giphy ................................................5
`
`This Court Lacks Specific Jurisdiction Over Giphy ................................................6
`
`The Internet Does Not Create Personal Jurisdiction Over Giphy
`Where It Would Not Otherwise Exist ......................................................................9
`
`IV.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BECAUSE
`THIS DISTRICT IS AN IMPROPER VENUE FOR HER CLAIMS ...............................11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Legal Standard .......................................................................................................11
`
`This District Is An Improper Venue Because None Of The Acts
`Or Omissions Giving Rise To Plaintiff’s Claims Occurred Here ..........................12
`
`V.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BECAUSE
`IT FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED .........12
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff’s Claims Are Barred By Section 230 Of The Federal
`Communications Decency Act ..............................................................................12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Legal Standard ...........................................................................................13
`
`Section 230 Bars State Law Claims Like Plaintiff’s .................................14
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff’s Claims Are Time-Barred.......................................................................14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Legal Standard ...........................................................................................14
`
`The GIFs At Issue Appeared On Giphy’s Platform More Than
`Two Years Before Plaintiff Filed Her Complaint ......................................15
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 55-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 3 of 30
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff Otherwise Fails To State A Claim ...........................................................15
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Legal Standard ...........................................................................................16
`
`Plaintiff’s Statutory Claim Fails ................................................................17
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Giphy Did Not Use Plaintiff’s Likeness For Any Commercial
`Or Advertising Purpose, As Required By Statute ..........................17
`
`As A “Communications Medium,” Giphy Is Immune
`From § 8316 Claims Absent “Actual Knowledge” Of
`Unauthorized Use...........................................................................20
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff’s Common Law Right of Publicity Claim Fails ..........................20
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Plaintiff’s Common Law Cause Of Action Has Been
`Subsumed By Her Statutory Cause Of Action ...............................20
`
`Even If Plaintiff’s Common Law Claim Has Not Been
`Subsumed, It Fails To Plead Giphy’s Commercial Purpose ..........21
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 55-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 4 of 30
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Ackourey v. Andre Lani Custom Clothiers,
`
` No. 12-CV-1686, 2012 WL 5944677 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 28, 2012) .............................................. 10
`
`Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc.,
`
` 751 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................... 10-11
`
`Arnold v. Irish Bred Pub Concepts Co.,
`
` No. 17-CV-3643, 2018 WL 1960815 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 25, 2018) ................................................. 6
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ......................................................................................... 16
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ......................................................................... 16
`
`BNSF Railway Co v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017) ..................................................................... 5
`
`Braham v. Sony/ATV Music Publ’g,
`
` No. 15-CV-8422, 2015 WL 7074571 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2015) .............................................. 2
`
`Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Cola, 745 F. Supp. 2d 588 (E.D. Pa. 2010) ............................................. 2
`
`Buck v. Hampton Twp. Sch. Dist., 452 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 2006)..................................................... 3
`
`Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) ......................................................................................... 6, 8
`
`Chavez v. Dole Food Co., Inc., 836 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2016) ......................................................... 5
`
`Christie v. Nat’l Inst. for Newman Studies, 258 F. Supp. 3d 494 (D.N.J. 2017) ............................ 9
`
`City of Cambridge Ret. Sys. v. Altisource Asset Mgmt. Corp.,
`
` 908 F.3d 872 (3d Cir. 2018)...................................................................................................... 16
`
`Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp., 809 F.3d 780 (3d Cir. 2016) ..................................................... 17
`
`Corley v. Vance, 365 F. Supp. 3d 407 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ................................................................. 9
`
`Cottman Transmission Sys., Inc. v. Martino, 36 F.3d 291 (3d Cir. 1994) .................................... 11
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 55-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 5 of 30
`
`D’Jamoos ex rel. Estate of Weingeroff v. Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.,
`
` 566 F.3d 94 (3d Cir. 2009).......................................................................................................... 6
`
`Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) ................................................................................ 5
`
`Diodato v. Wells Fargo Ins. Servs., USA, Inc., 44 F. Supp. 3d 541 (M.D. Pa. 2014) .................. 19
`
`Display Works, LLC v. Bartley, 182 F. Supp. 3d 166 (D.N.J. 2016) .............................................. 9
`
`Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................................ 9-10
`
`Eagle v. Morgan, No. 11-CV-4303, 2013 WL 943350 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2013) ........................ 19
`
`Evans v. Wurkin Stiffs, Inc.,
`
` No. 15-61934-CIV, 2016 WL 8793339 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2016) .......................................... 20
`
`Facenda v. N.F.L. Films, Inc., 542 F.3d 1007 (3d Cir. 2008) ..................................................... 20
`
`Facenda v. N.F.L. Films, Inc., 488 F. Supp. 2d 491 (E.D. Pa. 2007) ........................................... 20
`
`Fatouros v. Lambrakis, 627 F. App’x 84 (3d Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 10
`
`Gehling v. St. George’s Sch. of Med., 773 F.2d 539 (3d Cir. 1985) ............................................... 4
`
`Georgalis v. Facebook, Inc., 324 F. Supp. 3d 955 (N.D. Ohio 2018) ......................................... 8-9
`
`Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) ..................................... 5
`
`Grant Street Group, Inc. v. D & T Ventures, LLC,
`
` No. 10-CV-1095, 2012 WL 13689 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 4, 2012)..................................................... 11
`
`Green v. Am. Online (AOL), 318 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. 2003) ..................................................... 12, 13
`
`Gullen v. Facebook.com, Inc.,
`
` No. 15-CV-7681, 2016 WL 245910 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2016) .................................................... 9
`
`IMO Indus., Inc. v. Kiekert AG, 155 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 1998) ........................................................ 6
`
`In re Zostavax (Zoster Vaccine Live) Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`
` 358 F. Supp. 3d 418 (E.D. Pa. 2019) .......................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 55-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 6 of 30
`
`Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)........................................................................ 4
`
`James v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 700 F.3d 675 (3d Cir. 2012) ........................................................ 16
`
`Kabbaj v. Google Inc., 592 F. App’x 74 (3d Cir. 2015) ............................................................... 13
`
`Loeb v. Bank of Am., 254 F. Supp. 2d 581 (E.D. Pa. 2003) .......................................................... 12
`
`Mmubango v. Google, Inc.,
`
` No. 12-CV-1300, 2013 WL 664231 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 2013) ................................................. 14
`
`Molnlycke Health Care AB v. Dumex Med. Surgical Prod. Ltd.,
`
` 64 F. Supp. 2d 448 (E.D. Pa. 1999) ............................................................................................ 9
`
`O’Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., 496 F.3d 312 (3d Cir. 2007) ................................................. 4
`
`Obado v. Magedson, 612 F. App’x 90 (3d Cir. 2015) ............................................................ 13, 21
`
`Obado v. Magedson, No. 13-CV-2382, 2014 WL 3778261 (D.N.J. July 31, 2014) .............. 13, 14
`
`Orazi v. Hilton Hotels Corp.,
`
` No. 09-CV-05959, 2010 WL 4751728 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 22, 2010) .............................................. 9
`
`Parker v. Google, Inc., 424 F. App'x 833 (3d Cir. 2007) ............................................................. 13
`
`Parker v. Google, Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 492 (E.D. Pa. 2006) ...................................................... 13
`
`Parker v. Paypal, Inc.,
`
` No. 16-CV-4786, 2017 WL 3508759 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 2017) .............................................. 14
`
`Pearce v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd.,
`
` No. 18-CV-306, 2018 WL 4094812 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 2018) ................................................ 10
`
`Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc.,
`
` 998 F.2d 1192 (3d Cir. 1993)...................................................................................................... 3
`
`Philadelphia Orchestra Ass’n v. Walt Disney Co.,
`
` 821 F. Supp. 341 (E.D. Pa. 1993) ............................................................................................. 21
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 55-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 7 of 30
`
`Remick v. Manfredy, 238 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2001) ......................................................................... 7
`
`Ricoh USA, Inc. v. Bailon, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, ----,
`
` 2019 WL 6682144 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 6, 2019) ........................................................................ 16, 17
`
`Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999) ................................................................ 4
`
`Schmidt v. Skolas, 770 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2014) ........................................................................... 15
`
`Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2011) ................................................................. 10
`
`Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007) ................................................ 2
`
`The Choice Is Yours, Inc. v. The Choice Is Yours,
`
` No. 14-CV-1804, 2015 WL 5584302 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2015) .............................................. 20
`
`Time Share Vacation Club v. Atl. Resorts, Ltd., 735 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1984) ................................. 4
`
`Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 2003) ................................................ 10
`
`Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) ............................................................................................ 8
`
`Wallace v. MediaNews Group, Inc., 568 F. App'x 121 (3d Cir. 2014) ......................................... 18
`
`Wallace v. MediaNews Group, Inc.
`
` No. 12-CV-0872, 2013 WL 214632 (M.D. Pa. Jan 18, 2013) ............................................ 18, 21
`
`Wise v. Biowish Techs., Inc.,
`
` No. 18-CV-676 2019 WL 4344273 (D. Del. Sept. 12, 2019) ................................................... 15
`
`World Wrestling Fed’n Entm’t Inc. v. Big Dog Holdings, Inc.,
`
` 280 F. Supp. 2d 413 (W.D. Pa. 2003) ................................................................................. 19, 21
`
`Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) .............................................................. 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 55-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 8 of 30
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) ........................................................................................................... 11, 12
`
`47 U.S.C. § 230 ................................................................................................................. 12, 13, 14
`
`42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5523 .............................................................................................................. 15
`
`42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524 .............................................................................................................. 15
`
`42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8316 ....................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`Rules
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) ............................................................................... 1, 2, 4
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) ............................................................................. 1, 2, 11
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ............................................................................. 1, 2, 16
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Merriam–Webster Online Dictionary
`
`(available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/) ...................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 55-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 9 of 30
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Karen Hepp brings right of publicity claims against Defendant Giphy, Inc.
`
`(“Giphy”), a Delaware corporation, based solely on the allegation that an anonymous person took
`
`a photo of her in New York City which was made available in substantively modified form on
`
`Giphy’s searchable database of animated images (called “GIFs”). The Amended Complaint does
`
`not allege that Giphy has any connection to Pennsylvania, nor does it allege that Giphy knew this
`
`GIF had been added to its website or had any role in creating it. On top of this, the images at issue
`
`were added to the Giphy website well outside the applicable statute of limitations.
`
`Given these deficiencies, any one of which makes the suit non-viable, the Amended
`
`Complaint should be dismissed.
`
`First, the Court should dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 12(b)(2), as it has neither general nor specific personal jurisdiction over Giphy in this
`
`action.
`
`Second, the Court should dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3)
`
`because none of the acts or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Eastern
`
`District of Pennsylvania.
`
`Third, in the event this Court does not dismiss the Amended Complaint on jurisdictional
`
`grounds, it should dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`because Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 and Section 8316(d) of
`
`Pennsylvania’s right of publicity law provide Giphy with immunity from these claims.
`
`Fourth, it should dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`because Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
`
`And fifth, it should dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice pursuant to Rule
`
`12(b)(6) because Plaintiff’s allegations cannot satisfy the elements of the claims she pleads.
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 55-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 10 of 30
`
`Giphy made most of these arguments in its motion to dismiss the initial Complaint in this
`
`action. Dkt. 45. Rather than oppose that motion, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in an effort
`
`to cure the defects that Giphy (and other defendants) identified. Am. Compl. (Dkt. 50). But these
`
`issues remain, and they are incurable.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS
`
`Giphy
`
`A.
`Giphy is a Delaware corporation. Am. Compl. ¶ 26; Richards Decl. ¶ 2.1 Giphy has no
`
`offices in Pennsylvania, has no employees in Pennsylvania, owns no real property in Pennsylvania,
`
`and holds no bank accounts or other assets in Pennsylvania. Id. ¶ 6. Giphy does not specifically
`
`target any marketing or promotional material at Pennsylvania. Id. ¶ 5. Giphy is not alleged to be
`
`(and it is not) a Pennsylvania resident. Am. Compl. ¶ 26; Richards Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.
`
`Giphy operates a website and software platform that, among other things, allows users to
`
`search and access an online database of animated Graphics Interchange Format (“GIF”) files. Am.
`
`Compl. ¶ 27. “Broadly speaking, a GIF is ‘a computer file format for the compression and storage
`
`of digital video images.’ In popular culture, [animated] GIFs are often used on the internet to
`
`convey humorous ideas, much like a meme.” Braham v. Sony/ATV Music Publ’g, No. 15-CV-
`
`8422, 2015 WL 7074571, at *4 n.5 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2015) (citing GIF, Merriam–Webster
`
`Online Dictionary (available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/GIF)). Giphy is used
`
`
`1 Giphy’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is based on the facts alleged in the
`Amended Complaint, matters that are properly subject to judicial notice, and one document
`incorporated by reference in the Amended Complaint. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.,
`551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007). The one document incorporated by reference upon which Giphy relies
`is attached to a declaration submitted by Giphy product manager Ari Spool.
`Giphy’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) and (3) also relies on a declaration
`submitted by Whit Richards, Giphy’s CFO. When a defendant raises a jurisdictional objection at
`the pleading stage, “the court must consider any affidavits submitted by the parties.” Brown &
`Brown, Inc. v. Cola, 745 F. Supp. 2d 588, 602 (E.D. Pa. 2010).
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 55-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 11 of 30
`
`by hundreds of millions of people, located in all 50 states and around the world. Richards Decl.
`
`¶ 4; Am. Compl. ¶ 28. These users view billions of GIFs every day. Richards Decl. ¶ 4. Giphy
`
`partners with brands who wish to host and share GIFs on Giphy’s platform, but—contrary to
`
`Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations—Giphy does not provide its partners with the ability to geo-
`
`target those branded GIFs at residents of Pennsylvania or any other jurisdiction. Id. ¶ 7.
`
`Plaintiff’s Allegations
`
`B.
`Plaintiff alleges2 that she is a television news anchor who appears on local Philadelphia
`
`programming between the hours of 4 AM and 6 AM and again between 9 AM and 10 AM. Am.
`
`Compl. ¶¶ 37-38. Plaintiff worked in New York City until November of 2010. Id. ¶¶ 37, 39. At
`
`some point before September 2017, a photograph of Plaintiff was taken by a security camera in a
`
`New York City convenience store. Id. ¶ 43. An unknown person uploaded that photograph without
`
`Plaintiff’s consent to a number of online platforms. Id. ¶¶ 45-50. The version of the photograph
`
`made available on Giphy was substantively modified and converted to an animated GIF. Id. ¶ 49.
`
`The Amended Complaint provides links to these GIFs as they appeared on Giphy’s platform (Id.),
`
`and metadata for the linked GIFs indicates that they were added on June 3, 2016 and September
`
`27, 2016.3 Spool Decl. ¶ 2 & Ex. A.
`
`Plaintiff contends that these actions constitute violations by Giphy of 42 Pa. Cons.
`
`Stat. § 8316 and Pennsylvania’s common law right of publicity. Am. Compl. at 9-11.
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise noted, the factual allegations set forth in this brief are taken from Plaintiff’s
`Amended Complaint and are assumed to be true solely for purposes of this motion.
`3 Plaintiff incorporated these GIF files in her complaint by expressly linking to them and
`attaching a paper print-out. Am. Compl. ¶ 49 & Ex. O. See Buck v. Hampton Twp. Sch. Dist., 452
`F.3d 256, 260 (3d Cir. 2006) (court may consider “any matters incorporated by reference or
`integral to the claim”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Pension Ben. Guar. Corp.
`v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993) (“[A] court may consider an
`undisputedly authentic document that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if
`the plaintiff’s claims are based on the document.”).
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 55-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 12 of 30
`
`III. THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BECAUSE IT
`LACKS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER GIPHY
`
`Legal Standard
`
`A.
`Personal jurisdiction is “an essential element of the jurisdiction of a district court, without
`
`which the court is powerless to proceed to an adjudication.” Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526
`
`U.S. 574, 584 (1999) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). The plaintiff “bears the
`
`burden of establishing with reasonable particularity sufficient contacts between the defendant and
`
`the forum state to support jurisdiction.” Gehling v. St. George’s Sch. of Med., 773 F.2d 539, 542
`
`(3d Cir. 1985). Once a Rule 12(b)(2) defense has been raised, “the plaintiff must sustain its burden
`
`of proof in establishing jurisdictional facts through sworn affidavits or other competent evidence.
`
`. . . [A]t no point may a plaintiff rely on the bare pleadings alone in order to withstand a defendant’s
`
`Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction. Once the motion is made,
`
`plaintiff must respond with actual proofs, not mere allegations.” Time Share Vacation Club v. Atl.
`
`Resorts, Ltd., 735 F.2d 61, 66 n.9 (3d Cir. 1984) (citation omitted).
`
`A district court typically exercises personal jurisdiction according to the long-arm statute
`
`of the state in which it sits. O’Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., 496 F.3d 312, 316 (3d Cir. 2007).
`
`Because Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute extends personal jurisdiction to the limits of
`
`constitutional due process, here Plaintiff must demonstrate that Giphy has “certain minimum
`
`contacts with Pennsylvania such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions
`
`of fair play and substantial justice.” Id. (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316
`
`(1945)) (alterations omitted).
`
`There are two ways in which Plaintiff could demonstrate the existence of personal
`
`jurisdiction: general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction. O’Connor, 496 F.3d at 317. Plaintiff
`
`cannot show personal jurisdiction over Giphy under either theory.
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 55-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 13 of 30
`
`This Court Lacks General Jurisdiction Over Giphy
`
`B.
`“The Supreme Court has held that a state court’s general jurisdiction over a corporation
`
`exists only where the state is the defendant’s home, that is, the state of its incorporation, or the
`
`state of its principal place of business or ‘in an exceptional case’ where ‘its operations may be so
`
`substantial and of such a nature as to render the corporation at home in that state.’” In re Zostavax
`
`(Zoster Vaccine Live) Prod. Liab. Litig., 358 F. Supp. 3d 418, 423 (E.D. Pa. 2019) (quoting, inter
`
`alia, Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 137-139 n.19 (2014)). “[I]t is incredibly difficult to
`
`establish general jurisdiction over a corporation in a forum other than the place of incorporation
`
`or principal place of business.” Chavez v. Dole Food Co., Inc., 836 F.3d 205, 223 (3d Cir. 2016)
`
`(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Even where a defendant has employees and assets
`
`in a particular state, general jurisdiction will not exist if those contacts are small compared to the
`
`company’s nationwide activities. See BNSF Railway Co v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549, 1554 (2017)
`
`(holding that a national railroad company was not subject to general jurisdiction in Montana
`
`notwithstanding the fact that it had “over 2,000 miles of railroad track and more than 2,000
`
`employees” in the state).
`
`Because Giphy is not “essentially at home” in Pennsylvania, it is not subject to general
`
`jurisdiction here. Daimler, 571 U.S. at 139; see also Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v.
`
`Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (setting strict constitutional limits on exercise of general personal
`
`jurisdiction over non-resident corporations).
`
`Plaintiff concedes that Giphy’s place of incorporation is Delaware, not Pennsylvania. Am.
`
`Compl. ¶ 26; see also Richards Decl. ¶ 2. It has no places of business other than New York,
`
`California, and Illinois. Id. ¶ 3. And this is not an exceptional case where a defendant has
`
`substantial operations that render it otherwise at home in Pennsylvania, because Giphy has no
`
`operations in Pennsylvania whatsoever. Id. ¶ 6. It owns no real estate in Pennsylvania, has no
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 55-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 14 of 30
`
`employees in Pennsylvania, and possesses no bank accounts or assets in Pennsylvania. Id. ¶ 6. It
`
`does not target its marketing specifically at residents of Pennsylvania. Id. ¶ 5. Giphy is a website
`
`and software platform, available nationwide, and any contacts with Pennsylvania are merely
`
`incidental and miniscule in comparison to the site’s nationwide operations.
`
`Thus, this Court cannot find that general personal jurisdiction exists over Giphy.
`
`This Court Lacks Specific Jurisdiction Over Giphy
`
`C.
`“In determining whether there is specific jurisdiction, we undertake a three-part inquiry.
`
`First, the defendant must have purposefully directed its activities at the forum. Second, the
`
`litigation must arise out of or relate to at least one of those activities. And third, if the first two
`
`requirements have been met, a court may consider whether the exercise of jurisdiction otherwise
`
`comports with fair play and substantial justice.” D’Jamoos ex rel. Estate of Weingeroff v. Pilatus
`
`Aircraft Ltd., 566 F.3d 94, 102 (3d Cir. 2009) (citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations
`
`omitted). None of these elements are met here.
`
`To determine whether purposeful direction exists for a tort claim such as breach of the right
`
`of publicity, courts apply the “effects test” set out in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). As the
`
`Third Circuit has explained, the relevant inquiry requires that the plaintiff show, inter alia, that the
`
`defendant “expressly aimed his tortious conduct at the forum such that the forum can be said to be
`
`the focal point of the tortious activity.” IMO Indus., Inc. v. Kiekert AG, 155 F.3d 254, 266 (3d Cir.
`
`1998). Plaintiff “must show that the defendant 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.” Id. “It is not enough [to establish
`
`specific jurisdiction] for Plaintiffs to have suffered harm in Pennsylvania by something Defendants
`
`did elsewhere.” Arnold v. Irish Bred Pub Concepts Co., No. 17-CV-3643, 2018 WL 1960815, at
`
`*2 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 25, 2018).
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 55-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 15 of 30
`
`The Third Circuit has found in similar circumstances that the mere posting without
`
`authorization of an image of a plaintiff on a defendant’s universally-accessible website does not
`
`constitute express aiming of conduct at the plaintiff’s home state. See Remick v. Manfredy, 238
`
`F.3d 248, 259 (3d Cir. 2001). In Remick, the defendant posted an image of the plaintiff on a boxing
`
`website without the plaintiff’s permission. Id. The website was intended to provide information
`
`about the defendant and “was accessible worldwide.” Id. Plaintiff argued that the fact that he
`
`suffered alleged harm in Pennsylvania, his home state, was sufficient to show purposeful direction.
`
`Appellant’s Brief at 24, Remick, 238 F.3d 248 (No. 99-1422), 2000 WL 34004960. The Third
`
`Circuit held that the effects test was “clearly not satisfied,” because there was “no basis to conclude
`
`that the defendants expressly aimed their allegedly tortious activity at Pennsylvania knowing that
`
`harm was likely to be caused there . . . . Any resulting harm to [the plaintiff] was merely
`
`incidental.” 238 F.3d at 259.
`
`So it is here. Like the defendant in Remick, Giphy is not alleged to have taken any suit-
`
`related actions in or deliberately targeted at Pennsylvania. As Plaintiff alleges, Giphy is merely a
`
`website “that consists of an online database and search engine that allows users to search for and
`
`share short looping videos.” Am. Compl. ¶ 27. A modified photograph of Plaintiff taken in New
`
`York was allegedly added to Giphy. Id. ¶ 49. That is the whole of Plaintiff’s allegations regarding
`
`Giphy’s allegedly tortious conduct. This is far less compelling than the fact pattern in Remick,
`
`where the parties were acquainted and knew one another’s locations.4 238 F.3d at 253, 259
`
`(plaintiff was defendant’s lawyer).
`
`
`4 In fact, there is not a single fact alleged in the Amended Complaint (or available to Plaintiff
`outside it) to suggest that Giphy should have known that Plaintiff would suffer any injury in
`Pennsylvania other than the statements that she is “well-regarded in the Philadelphia community,”
`that she is a “well-known public figure,” and that she has “thousands” of followers on social media.
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04034-JMY Document 55-1 Filed 03/03/20 Page 16 of 30
`
`Apparently recognizing this defect, Plaintiff amended her complaint and now contends that
`
`Giphy should be subject to specific jurisdiction because it “purposely avail[s]” itself of
`
`“conducting activities within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” Am. Compl. ¶ 4. This does
`
`not solve Plaintiff’s problem, as her allegations in support of this contention have nothing to do
`
`with Giphy’s allegedly tortious conduct. See Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284 (2014) (“For a
`
`State to exercise jurisdiction consistent with due process, the defendant’s suit-related conduct must
`
`create a substantial connection with the forum State.” (emphasis added)). Plaintiff alleges that
`
`Giphy has lots of users around the world, that it seeks out relationships with marketers and GIF
`
`artists, and that one such GIF artist is located in Pennsylvania.5 Am. Compl. ¶¶ 28-33. But just as
`
`none of Giphy’s alleged suit-related conduct is expressly aimed at Pennsylvania, none of this
`
`alleged Pennsylvania-related conduct has anything to do with Plaintiff’s suit. Indeed, courts
`
`routinely conclude in similar cases that such unrelated contacts do not meet the “arising out of or
`
`relating to” requirement for specific jurisdiction. See, e.g., Georgalis v. Facebook, Inc., 324 F.
`
`
`Am. Compl. ¶¶ 54, 57-58. There are no allegations that Giphy had any idea who Plaintiff was, that
`it did anything affirmatively to target Plaintiff, or that it knew where any allegedly tortious conduct
`would cause her harm. Cf. Calder, 465 U.S. at 789-90 (finding personal jurisdiction over
`defendants because they knew who plaintiff was