UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

_______________________________________ ) NICHOLAS J. LOUISA, ESQ., ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. ) 20-11691-FDS v. ) ) NETFLIX, INC.; NETFLIX WORLDWIDE ) ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; JIGSAW ) PRODUCTIONS, LCC; MUDDY WATERS ) PRODUCTIONS, LLC; ALEX GIBNEY; ) RICHARD PERELLO; STACEY OFFMAN; ) PETER KNOWLES; SAMANTHA ) KNOWLES; LISA SIEGEL BELANGER; ) LONNIE BRENNAN; and the BOSTON ) BROADSIDE, ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND SAYLOR, C.J. On August 13, 2020, plaintiff Nicholas Louisa filed a complaint in Middlesex County Superior Court against defendants Netflix, Inc.; Netflix Worldwide Entertainment, LLC; Jigsaw Productions, LLC; Muddy Waters Productions, LLC; Alex Gibney; Richard Perello; Stacey Offman; Peter Knowles; Samantha Knowles; Lisa Siegel Belanger; Lonnie Brennan; and the Boston Broadside. On September 15, 2020, defendant Boston Broadside removed the case to this Court on the basis of claimed federal-question jurisdiction under

. The next day, plaintiff moved to remand under

(c). Federal-question jurisdiction extends to cases that arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

. To determine whether a claim arises under federal law, courts look to the “well-pleaded” allegations of the complaint, ignoring potential defenses. See Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila,

(2004); Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson,

(2003). Thus, the existence of a federal defense—including a defense that relies on a constitutional provision—“normally does not create statutory ‘arising under’

jurisdiction, and a defendant may not [generally] remove a case to federal court unless plaintiff’s complaint establishes that the case ‘arises under’ federal law.” Aetna Health,

(internal quotation and citations omitted); see also Beneficial,

. Here, there is no federal question on the face of the amended complaint. It alleges only state-law claims: defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. (Def. Ex. 5). Defendant may raise a defense to the defamation claim under the First Amendment, but the existence of a defense based on the Constitution, under the circumstances presented here, cannot form the basis of federal-question jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED. The case is

hereby REMANDED to the Middlesex County Superior Court. So Ordered.

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor, IV F. Dennis Saylor, IV Dated: September 18, 2020 Chief Judge, United States District Court