Jevremovic v. Courville

1

LIMA JEVREMOVIC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BRITTANY JEREAM COURVILLE, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 22-4969 (ZNQ) (RLS)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

August 30, 2024

Not For Publication

OPINION

ZAHID N. QURAISHI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Brittany Jeream Courville (“Courville”), Prem Benipal (“Benipal”), and That Surprise Witness TV LLC (the “LLC”) (collectively “Defendants”). (“Motion”, ECF No 67.) Defendant filed a brief in support of their Motion. (“Moving Br.”, ECF No. 67-1.) Plaintiffs Lima Jevremovic (“Jevremovic”) and Autonomous User Rehabilitation Agent, LLC (“AURA”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed an Opposition to the Motion (“Opp'n Br.”, ECF No. 71), to which Defendants replied (“Reply Br.”, ECF No. 74).

The Court has carefully considered the parties' submissions and decides the Motion without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Civil Rule 78.1.^[1]For the reasons set forth below, the Court will GRANT Defendants' Motion.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of alleged defamatory statements made by Defendants across various online platforms about Jevremovic and her company, AURA. (See generally Third Amended Complaint, “TAC”.) A complete factual background of this dispute is set forth in this Court's Opinion dated August 10, 2023, which the Court incorporates by reference. Jevremovic v. Courville, Civ. No. 22-4969, 2023 WL 5127332 (D.N.J. Aug. 10, 2023) (hereinafter Jevremovic). The relevant background and procedural history are summarized as follows.

Plaintiffs initiated the instant action on August 8, 2022, by filing the original Complaint. (“Compl.”, ECF No. 1.) On May 30, 2022, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege the citizenship of AURA. (ECF No. 24.) On June 6, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”, ECF No. 26) that adequately alleged AURA's citizenship; the original Complaint and the Amended Complaint are otherwise identical. Accordingly, the Court withdrew its Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 32.)

The Amended Complaint asserted two counts of libel against Courville. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 26 ¶¶ 29-111.) Between the two counts, Plaintiffs alleged that Courville made defamatory statements about Plaintiffs on her YouTube channel, on Instagram posts, and on other social media platforms. The statements largely concerned Plaintiffs' relationship with Amanda Rabb and Brandon “Bam” Margera, individuals associated with Jevremovic and AURA's efforts to provide mental health services to individuals suffering mental health crises. (TAC ¶¶ 18-19, 23-24.)

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 20), which the Court granted. Jevremovic, 2023 WL 5127332. In Jevremovic, the Court held that Courville's statements (“Challenged Statements”) were unactionable opinions, not defamatory statements. Id. The Court provided several explanations to support its conclusion that the Challenged Statements were not actionable defamatory statements, including that: (1) the statements were made on Instagram and YouTube which are “forums that welcome opinions and candor,” (id. at *5); (2) despite being a lawyer, Courville “disclaims that her opinions are ‘not legal advice,'” (id. at *6); and (3) Courville characterizes her opinions as “theories” and even refers to herself as a “conspiracy theorist,” (id.). The Court also found that Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead actual malice, a demanding standard requiring “particularized facts to suggest that . . . [the statement] was published with knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the reported statement.” Darakjian v. Hanna, 366 N.J.Super. 238, 248 (App. Div. 2004). Ultimately, Court dismissed the two libel counts without prejudice and granted Plaintiff leave to “cure the defects noted in [Jevremovic]” and noted that a failure to do so may result in dismissal with prejudice. Jevremovic, 2023 WL 5127332, at *8.

On September 11, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (ECF No. 48.) Just a few months later, Plaintiffs filed the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) on December 6, 2023, to correct a clerical error in the caption of the SAC. (ECF No. 64.) Other than the caption, the SAC and the TAC are identical, and the Court refers to the TAC as it is the operative pleading in this matter.

The amendments in the TAC significantly exceeded the Court's narrow authorization for Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint to cure the defects with their two counts for libel. First, Plaintiffs added two new parties in the TAC, Defendants Benipal and the LLC. (See generally id.) Second, Plaintiffs retain their two libel claims but have also added eight additional counts, Counts Three through Ten, for various causes of action including invasion of privacy, harassment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and unfair competition. (Id. ¶¶ 173222.) To support their additional causes of action, Plaintiffs plead several factual allegations describing Defendants' purported harassment and doxing behavior towards them. (Id. ¶¶ 44-63.) Plaintiffs describe how Defendants “have resorted to an unabashed campaign of doxing and cyberharassment in attempts to intimidate Jevremovic and prevent” her from bringing this lawsuit. (Id. ¶ 44.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have published over 300 videos and over 1,000 posts about Jevremovic across Defendants' social media outlets. (Id. ¶ 47.) In particular, Plaintiffs point to a photo that Defendants published “falsely communicating that Courville had found an OnlyFans page for Jevremovic-a profile page which links to pornographic films and photographs that are not Jevremovic.” (Id. ¶ 48.) Finally, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have distributed personal information relating to Jevremovic and her family. (Id. ¶¶ 50-53.) Altogether, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants' conduct has caused “substantial and irreversible damage to Jevremovic's career and reputation” and well as destroying AURA's ability to operate professionally or commercially. (TAC ¶¶ 60-61.)

Although Defendants recognize that Plaintiffs have “tried to widen the scope of this action” with their amendments in the TAC, Defendants do not object to Plaintiffs' amendments on a procedural basis and the Motion only seeks dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). (Moving Br. at 1.) As such, the Court accepts the TAC as the operative pleading and will consider Defendants' arguments for dismissal.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) “requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) (abrogated on other grounds)).

A district court conducts a three-part analysis when considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011). “First, the court must ‘tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim.'” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675 (2009)). Second, the court must accept as true all of the plaintiff's well-pleaded factual allegations and “construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). The court, however, may ignore legal conclusions or factually unsupported accusations that merely state the defendant unlawfully harmed me. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Finally, the court must determine whether “the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a ‘plausible claim for relief.'” Fowler, 578 F.3d at 211 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). A facially plausible claim “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 210 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663). On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the “defendant bears the burden of showing that no claim has been presented.” Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc., 926 F.2d 1406, 1409 (3d Cir. 1991)).

III. DISCUSSION

A. VIABILITY OF CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS BENIPAL AND THE LLC

Before the Court addresses Defendants' arguments for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court will first address two arguments Defendants raise seeking to dismiss claims against Benipal and the LLC on alternative grounds.

1. No Plausible Allegations Support the Claims against Benipal and the LLC

Defendants first raise a broad, overarching argument that the entire TAC should be dismissed against Benipal and the LLC because the TAC lacks specific factual allegations to substantiate the claims against Benipal and the LLC. (Moving Br. at 30-31.) Defendants claim that Plaintiffs make “only a handful of allegations relating to Benipal or the LLC, but none plausibly allege any wrongdoing.” (Id. at 30.) Despite Defendants' efforts to characterize the allegations against Benipal and the LLC as “scant,” the Court disagrees. A review of the TAC reveals that, in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled allegations against both Benipal and the LLC to satisfy threshold pleading requirements. The Court therefore rejects Defendants' argument and declines dismissing the...