Phillips v. Grayson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION WHITNEY PHILLIPS and IAN PHILLIPS, Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:23-cv-1041-TJC-MCR v. ASHLEY GRAYSON and DIGITAL COURSE RECIPE, Defendants.

ORDER THIS CASE is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. Doc. 22. The Plaintiffs have brought this case alleging jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332, requiring diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy of more than $75,000. Plaintiffs are both citizens of Florida. Ashley Grayson is a citizen of North Carolina and runs her business, Digital Course Recipe, from North Carolina. Doc. 22 at 2. Plaintiffs allege Defendants negligently posted confidential information on a social media platform and seek two million dollars in damages based on emotional distress and financial losses.

Defendants’ dispute subject matter jurisdiction, alleging the amount in controversy has not been properly met.1 Doc. 22 at 4–5. Defendants’ also dispute personal jurisdiction alleging Plaintiffs’ have not met either the requirements of Florida’s long-arm statute nor federal due process requirements.2 Doc. 22 at 2–4.

I. FACTS Plaintiffs were clients of Grayson’s business, Digital Course Recipe, which provides coaching for business success. Plaintiffs shared a photo with Grayson by text that contained their address, income, and a social security number. Doc.

1. Plaintiffs allege Defendants posted the same photo on social media, and thereby improperly shared Plaintiffs’ personal information, including a Florida address, with Defendants’ 400,000 plus followers.

Plaintiff’s complaint does not include details to support the amount in controversy, it merely states a claim for damages. In opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs claim the improper posting resulted in emotional harm and caused economic damages related to loss of income3 and relocation.

Nonetheless, in light of the Court’s ruling that the amount in controversy has not been established as required for diversity jurisdiction, it is unnecessary for the Court to rule on whether personal jurisdiction exists.

Plaintiffs’ do not include any actual amounts of lost income or for relocation expenses. See Doc. 23 at 4. Moreover, the claim about relocation and sale of Plaintiffs’ primary residence is inconsistent with other court filings. 4 In addition to this lawsuit (filed in 2023), Whitney Phillips has filed three other lawsuits between 2022 and 2024 with this Court. Her address for all four cases is the same and is the same address Ian Phillips lists for this case.

II. Analysis "To invoke a federal court's diversity jurisdiction, a plaintiff must claim, among other things, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000." Fastcase, Inc. v. Lawriter, LLC, 907 F.3d 1335, 1342 (11th Cir. 2018). The party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim on which it is basing jurisdiction meets the jurisdictional minimum. Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKinnon Motors, Inc., 329 F.3d 805, 807 (11th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).

Here the Plaintiffs’ have not provided any information about actual economic damages and provide no evidence to value an emotional distress claim. Moreover, the claim of relocation expenses is suspect. Plaintiffs claim to have sold their primary residence, but the address for multiple cases filed in

2. Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion to Modify Scheduling Order, Doc. 43; Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Document Production, Doc. 44; and Motion for Expedited Consideration of Amended Motion to Modify Scheduling Order, Doc. 47; are all DENIED as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida the 9th day of July, 2024.

Oa > Cimotheg Corrig on TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN “= _~United States District Judge ddw Copies: The post was on or around August 11, 2023. See Doc. 1-1 at 8.

Counsel of record