Groo v. Mont. Eleventh Judicial Dist. Court

413 Mont. 415

537 P.3d 111

Melissa GROO, Petitioner,

v.MONTANA ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, Hon. Amy Eddy, Presiding, Respondent.

OP 22-0587

Supreme Court of Montana.

Argued: March 31, 2023

Submitted: April 4, 2023

Decided: October 11, 2023

For Petitioner: David B. Cotner (argued), Brian T. Geer, Cotner Ryan Law, PLLC, Missoula, Montana

For Plaintiffs Triple D. Game Farm, Inc., Lorney "Jay" Deist, and Kimberly Deist: Kris A. McLean (argued), Tyson A. McLean, Jordan A. Pallesi, Kris A. McLean Law Firm, PLLC, Missoula, Montana

Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 This matter comes before the Court on a Petition for Writ of Supervisory Control filed by Melissa Groo (Groo). Groo asks this Court to exercise supervisory control, pursuant to M. R. App. P. 14(3), over the Montana Eleventh Judicial District Court, and to conclude that the District Court's order of July 22, 2022, denying Groo's Motion to Dismiss, was in error.

¶2 The underlying case arises from Groo's purposeful and substantial use of social media to affect the business operations of Triple D Game Farm, Inc. (Triple D). In response, Triple D filed a Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial alleging Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations and Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage claims against Groo.

¶3 Groo moved to dismiss the claims against her for lack of personal jurisdiction. She contends that the statements she allegedly made on social media about Triple D did not create the minimum contacts with Montana as a forum nor constitute purposeful availment of the protections afforded by Montana law—both of which are required for a Montana court to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. The District Court held that the tort claims accrued in Montana because Groo's Facebook posts and messages identified Plaintiffs and tagged Montana residents and that bringing Groo before Montana courts would comport with the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

¶4 We accept supervisory control and restate the issue as follows:

Does Montana have specific personal jurisdiction over Groo regarding Triple D's intentional tort claims when the tortious activity allegedly accrued in Montana despite Groo only interacting with the forum via social media?

¶5 We conclude Montana has specific personal jurisdiction over Groo in this case and accordingly affirm the District Court's order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶6 Around 1977, Triple D began operations as a wildlife photography farm in Flathead County, Montana. Lorney "Jay" Deist (Deist) and his spouse, Kimberly Deist, operate the business. Triple D uses Facebook to promote its business to its approximately 21,000 followers.

¶7 In 2011, Triple D hired Heather Keepers (Keepers) as an animal trainer. In July 2020, Keepers resigned for personal reasons. In August 2020, Keepers corresponded with a Triple D client, B.M., and recounted a story of poor animal welfare at the farm. Keepers then acted on B.M.’s suggestion that she contact Groo about the alleged maltreatment.

¶8 Groo is an expert in the field of ethics in wildlife photography. She has received numerous awards for her contributions to the field and has published manifold articles on the topic in popular outlets, such as Outdoor Photographer . Groo has openly, repeatedly, and vehemently criticized photography game farms in her articles. She is a citizen and resident of the State of New York. Her only physical connections to Montana in the last five years include four short-term trips to the state.

¶9 In August 2020, Keepers, while outside of Montana, used Facebook Messenger to contact Groo, who also was not physically present in the state. Keepers sent the following message:

Hello Melissa. As I am not a big fan of yours, this message is difficult for me to send. But someone mentioned your name yesterday when I filled them in in [sic] some information. And I got to thinking. While you and I are not friends, we do have a common enemy....for slightly different reasons, but also for many of the same. Triple D.

My time spent there was heaven and hell all wrapped in one. I loved those animals more than anyone could love anything. And I gave them the best I could with what I was provided with. I worked there for 9 years under the false pretense that I would soon be taking it over. I held onto that idea Bc I wanted to change so much of what it was. And is. Many things you are wrong about but many things you are right about.

I will not disclose any information to you yet. Other than I have ENDLESS information and evidence and knowledge of evidence of many things. Illegal, unethical, and just absolutely morally wrong and dishonest.

My goal in reaching out to you is simple. Those animals need to be "saved" from Jay Deist. Those animals deserve so much better. And especially now that I'm not there to provide half of what they deserve, a lot of them are now just sitting and rotting. Some have even died suddenly since I left. (I left July 9). I am obviously desperate to save them. And well....it'll take someone who hates the Triple D as much as I do to do that. And I don't mean some animals and then Jay can get more. I mean ALL animals. And his operation stops entirely. Forever.

Is this something that interests you?

¶10 Groo responded to Keepers less than an hour later. Groo wrote:

Absofuckinglutely.

You are writing me at a very opportune time. i would love to get your help on taking him down. The things that I have uncovered from lots of research haunt me more than you can know. Or maybe you can know. I know we have clashed in the past, but if your first concern is the animals, we have that in common, and that is HUGE. Let's try to collaborate to make a better future for them. I am incredibly grateful you reached out. I know how terribly difficult it must be.

In advance of us speaking more, I want you to know that i am sorry if you feel attacked by me. It's just that I was horrified by what I had learned about Jay Deist and the fate of many of the animals, and you were the very public face of Triple D. So you got my anger. I felt you were complicit. But now I see you were not. And that you really do care. I'm sor [sic] sorry to have misjudged you.

I can't tell you how grateful I am to hear from you. I have a very special opportunity for you to speak out and to help make a big change but I can't say more about it now. Let's figure out how to move forward on this. I am away from home right now, and short on time, but will be back home as of this weekend.

I seriously want to weep with gratitude.

I want very much for Triple D and all game farms to be done. i am with you 200%.

¶11 About an hour later, Keepers responded:

Perfect. Look forward to talking.

Disclaimer: my biggest hesitation is that I signed a nondisclosure agreement upon employment. (Who tf has animal professionals sign a nondisclosure???) Anyway. I'd lose every penny from here on out if it meant ridding him of any and all animals now and future. But I'd rather not get sued. I'm not sure the total legality of everything. But I am working on understanding it.

¶12 Later, Groo emailed Keepers:

Heather, I was just doing some reading, and in advance of our talking, thought you might like to look over this info too:

When an NDA can be broken: [link to website]

Animal Welfare Act enforcement: [link to website]

For violations of Endangered Species Act (which might just apply to the leopards?) [link to website]

You are probably way ahead of me on this, but in case it's helpful!

I also wanted to mention that I am well connected to many kinds of folks we could seek out to help guide you. I know animal lawyers, am friends with Dan Ashe who was head of USFWS for years, I know a Montana FWP legal counsel, and am friends with the folks that lead captive wildlife programs at leading animal conservation and welfare orgs. So just know there is lots of support out there for you if you want it and I can help you connect to your choice.

M.

¶13 Following this initial exchange with Keepers, Groo used Facebook to share content pertaining to Triple D and to encourage other users to take explicit actions intended to affect Triple D. On August 6, 2020, Groo shared an article from Roadsidezoonews.org titled "Photography game farm Triple D Wildlife cited 6 times for keeping animals in squalor." Her post included the following comment: "More on Triple D photo game farm. What a disgrace to treat these magnificent animals so poorly. It's time for these wildlife brothels to be done. Photo by Susan Fox from a visit years ago to Triple D. Please share."

¶14 Importantly, between August 2–4, 2021, Groo again used Facebook to share information about Triple D and to direct users to take action that would affect Triple D's operations. In that three day period, Groo repeatedly shared a similar message—"I hope very much that those photographers/artists and companies listed as holding regular or future workshops there would cancel them immediately. It would be unconscionable to continue to support this facility"—and, within those messages, tagged various Triple D clients and group leaders.¹ (Emphasis added.) Approximately one-quarter of the individuals and companies tagged by Groo were located in Montana. Others tagged were not located in Montana, but had ongoing contracts with Triple D that were executed, and to be performed in, Montana.²

¶15 Triple D alleges that Groo's social media posts had a detrimental impact on their business in Montana.

¶16 On January 25, 2022, Triple D filed a Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial alleging Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations and Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage claims against Groo.

¶17 On April 18, 2022, Groo filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) —alleging lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, respectively.

¶18 On July 22, 2022, following oral...