Armslist LLC v. Facebook, Inc.

1

ARMSLIST LLC, TORQUELIST LLC, JONATHAN GIBBON, and N. ANDREW VARNEY, III, Plaintiffs, v. FACEBOOK, INC. and INSTAGRAM, LLC, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 21-1917

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

August 16, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

W Scott Hardy, United States District Judge

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand. (Docket No. 11). The motion has been fully briefed and is ready for disposition. (Docket Nos. 12, 16, 17). For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand shall be granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

Plaintiffs Armslist LLC, (“Armslist”), Torquelist LLC (“Torquelist”), Jonathan Gibbon (“Gibbon”), and N. Andrew Varney, III (“Varney”) initially filed a “Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief” in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, alleging that Defendants Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”)^[1] and Instagram, LLC (“Instagram”) suppressed, suspended, and/or deleted their accounts on these social media platforms based upon political or ideological disapproval in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution. (Docket No. 11). This initial complaint did not contain a demand for monetary damages. (Id.).

On September 1, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a “Petition to File Amended and Supplemental Complaint” and an “Amended and Supplemental Complaint in Civil Action for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.” (Docket No. 1-2). Like the original complaint, this first amended complaint (“FAC”) was filed in the Court of Common Pleas and solely sought declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Defendants filed preliminary objections to the FAC on November 12, 2021. (Docket No. 1-4).

On December 2, 2021, and in response to Defendants' preliminary objections, Plaintiffs filed and served a “Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint in Civil Action for Damages Under Pa Common Law, Declaratory, and Injunctive Relief” (“SAC”). (Docket No. 1-5). 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. (Id.). Accompanying the SAC are Plaintiffs' Stipulations that “the amount of controversy in this case . . . is no greater than $74,999.99, plus interest and costs.” (Id. at 65-68).

As set forth in the SAC, Armslist operates an online platform that allows third parties to communicate regarding buying, selling, and trading firearms and related accessories, though Armslist does not buy, sell, or trade firearms itself nor does it receive any proceeds from any sales conducted on its platform. (Docket No. 1-5, ¶¶ 23-25). Rather, Armslist makes money by selling advertisements on its website and by selling premium membership designations that permit such users to post classified advertisements. (Id. ¶ 33). Torquelist operates an online platform that allows third parties to communicate regarding buying, selling, and trading cars, trucks, and automotive parts and accessories. (Id. ¶ 65). Gibbon is the Chief Executive Officer and sole owner of both Armslist and Torquelist. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 66).

According to the SAC, Armslist, Gibbon, and Varney used Facebook and Instagram to communicate with friends, family, and potential users of Armslist. (Docket No. 1-5, ¶¶ 57, 108). Their 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. (Id. ¶¶ 60-62, 108-15). While Plaintiffs expressly aver that they never used Facebook or Instagram as a medium for the sale or exchange of firearms, they do allege that Armslist's, Gibbon's, and Varney's communications on those platforms “sometimes took the form of direct advertising, but was more often geared towards customer engagement” and to “build affinity and name recognition with potential Armslist users.” (Id. ¶¶ 58-59, 110-15). Similarly, Plaintiffs aver that Torquelist used Facebook and Instagram to communicate with potential users of its service and typically posted comments, links, and photos relating to automotive performance, including car and truck reviews, industry news, and other items of interest to auto enthusiasts. (Id. ¶¶ 65-68, 116-19). Plaintiffs aver that they abided by Facebook's and Instagram's Terms of Use and Community Guidelines and Standards. (Id. ¶¶ 64, 68, 115, 119).

As further alleged in the SAC, beginning in January 2020, Facebook and Instagram suppressed, suspended, and/or deleted the accounts of Armslist, Gibbon, and Varney on these social media platforms because of mounting pressure and governmental animus motivated by contrary political and ideological views, and by Gibbon's common ownership of both Armslist and Torquelist. (Docket No. 1-5, ¶¶ 69-73, 91, 96, 120-27, 149-52). Plaintiffs allege that the suppression, suspension, and deletion of their Facebook and Instagram accounts caused them to be “damaged in an amount not greater than $74,999.99” and further stipulate that “the amount of controversy in this case . . . is no greater than $74,999.99.” (Id. ¶¶ 226, 234, 240, 254, 274, 294, & at 65-68).

On December 30, 2021, less than thirty (30) days after receiving the SAC, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal seeking to invoke this Court's diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket No. 1). 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. § 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. (Docket No. 11). Plaintiffs' motion also asks the Court to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction. (Id.). Finally, Plaintiffs seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs. (Id.). 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. § 1447(c).

II. Legal Standard

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A civil action initially filed in state court that meets these criteria may be removed to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

The removal procedures are found in 28 U.S.C. § 1446. A defendant desiring to remove a civil action from state court to federal court shall file a notice of removal in the appropriate federal district court within 30 days of receipt of the initial pleading or within 30 days after receipt of “an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The notice of removal must contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). “By design, § 1446(a) tracks the general pleading requirement stated in Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 87 (2014). “Congress, by borrowing the familiar ‘short and plain statement' standard from Rule 8(a), intended to ‘simplify the pleading requirements for removal' and to clarify that courts should ‘apply the same liberal rules [to removal allegations] that are applied to other matters of pleading.'” Id. (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 100-889, at 71 (1988) (additional quotation marks omitted)) (alterations in original).

Following the filing of a notice of removal:

A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a). If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. An order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “[A]ll doubts should be resolved in favor of remand.” Steel Valley Auth. v. Union Switch & Signal Div., 809 F.2d 1006, 1010 (3d Cir. 1987), cert. dismissed sub nom. American Standard, Inc. v. Steel Valley Auth., 484 U.S. 1021 (1988).

Plaintiffs timely filed their Motion for Remand on January 28, 2022, contending that Defendants' Notice of Removal was untimely and that the amount in controversy is insufficient to invoke this Court's diversity jurisdiction. (Docket No. 11).

III. Discussion

A. Timeliness

As set forth above, Defendants were required to file their Notice of Removal within 30 days of receipt of the initial pleading or within 30 days after receipt of “an amended pleading motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' removal deadline was October 29, 2021, which was 30 days after Facebook received the FAC. Defendants did not file their Notice of Removal at that time, but instead filed preliminary objections in state court. Defendants did not file their Notice of...