John Doe v. Lee

JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, v. JESSICA JIAHUI LEE Defendant.

18 C 1193

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

January 17, 2019

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHARLES P. KOCORAS, District Judge:

Plaintiff John Doe ("Plaintiff"), an Illinois citizen, initiated this lawsuit against Jessica Jiahui Lee ("Lee"), a Texas citizen, alleging that Lee "engaged in a deliberate campaign to destroy Plaintiff" by spreading rumors and lies about Plaintiff to his social and professional circles as well as the general public online. Plaintiff also alleges that Lee vandalized his car in Illinois. Now before the Court is Lee's motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404 or 1046. For the following reasons, the Court denies Lee's motion.

BACKGROUND

The factual allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint are both numerous and distressing. For purposes of this motion, the Court recites an abridged version of the facts.

Plaintiff is a 45-year-old technology professional employed as a Senior Director at a consulting firm. Lee is a 19-year-old part-time exotic dancer and, according to Plaintiff, a "professional sugar baby" who enters into relationships with affluent men in exchange for gifts, travel, and a life of luxury. Plaintiff met Lee in or around early February 2017 while traveling to Las Vegas, Nevada for business. The two commenced a "casual dating relationship" in March 2017, which lasted for approximately seven months. Following their break-up, Lee allegedly turned sour and started behaving erratically.

Starting in October 2017, Lee incessantly called and sent Plaintiff text messages at all hours of the evening. When Plaintiff ignored her calls and texts, Lee allegedly falsely accused Plaintiff of rape and abuse, both verbal and physical. She sent messages to that effect to Plaintiff's estranged wife while they were in the midst of divorce proceedings. Lee also posted a message on her Instagram account, which has over 30,000 followers, alluding to an abusive relationship with a man who was "going through a divorce" and who "selfishly took [Lee's] body" despite her hesitation. Though Lee did not identify Plaintiff in the post, one of the comments identified Plaintiff by name. On October 22, 2017, Lee created a Craigslist advertisement titled "FIND THE MAN WHO RAPED MY 9 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER," in which she falsely accused Plaintiff of raping her non-existent daughter and included Plaintiff's Instragram handle and cell phone number.

In the midst of Lee's crusade against Plaintiff, she sent several signals that she was purposefully acting to destroy Plaintiff's reputation. In a text message to Plaintiff, Lee stated:

...you ruined your own life [Plaintiff]. I gave you fair warning what would happen if you disrespected me and threw me away.

In a similar tone, Lee posted a photograph of herself on her Instagram with a caption that read: "I don't get angry. I get even" with the hashtags #illruinyourlife, #becareful, and #dontmakememad.

Lee also created multiple fake accounts in Plaintiff's name across various social media and dating platforms in October and November 2017. For example, she created fake Instagram accounts, where she posted nude photos of Plaintiff and wrote "I am a rapist and cheater!!!!" and two Facebook profiles impersonating Plaintiff and contacting people in his network. She also signed Plaintiff up for dating applications such as OkCupid and Tinder in the male-seeking-male category. As a result, Plaintiff received countless phone calls and texts, some with risqué photographs of male genitalia. Lee created multiple fake LinkedIn accounts, connecting with people in Plaintiff's social and professional network. In one particular account, Lee wrote the following message beneath Plaintiff's name:

I hate working for [employer omitted]!! I also hate my clients!!!! I am also very drunk.

She also posted a lengthy, damaging message in which "Plaintiff" seemingly wrote that he hated his job and his clients, and that he sent inappropriate photographs to his clients.

Plaintiff was called into the Human Resources Department at his workplace shortly after this message. Plaintiff was vigilant in discovering and reporting the fake accounts, but as soon as one shut down, another one instantly popped up.

In mid-to-late-November, Lee apparently had a change of heart, calling for a "truce" with Plaintiff, promising that she would "never do another thing to try and 'get back'" at Plaintiff. In a follow-up text message, Lee claimed that she was hacked and attributed her behavior to "blackouts and memory losses." Upon discovering that Plaintiff filed a petition for order of protection against her, Lee sent a three-page text including the following language:

We live literally states apart. We'll never see each other again. So please just drop it and save yourself some money and time.

I'm truly sorry for every embarrassment I've caused you. It was all my fault, everything was my fault, I'll take the blame, all I want is for you to drop this.

Later that same morning, however, Plaintiff was informed by his building's management office that his car had been vandalized. Lee was captured on video footage entering Plaintiff's building the night before behind an unsuspecting resident. She then rode the elevator to the parking garage where she found Plaintiff's car and punctured three tires, scratched all four quarter panels of the vehicle, super glued the locks, and spray-painted swastikas on several panels of the car.

Plaintiff retained legal counsel, and on December 8, 2017, his attorney sent a formal notice to Lee. The letter informed Lee of Plaintiff's intentions to pursue legalaction against her. It also directed her to refrain from making future defamatory remarks and to remove any social media profiles, communications, or posts authored by Lee concerning the Plaintiff.

Still, after an order of protection and notice of impending lawsuit, Lee was relentless in her actions. She continued texting and calling Plaintiff, oftentimes from private and/or untraceable numbers. She continued to harass Plaintiff with inappropriate photographs and messages into February 2018, when Plaintiff brought this lawsuit.

On February 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed his seven-count Complaint, alleging the following causes of action: Count I, Defamation Per Se; Count II, False Light Invasion of Privacy; Count III, Public Disclosure of Private Facts; Count IV, Tortious Interference with Business Expectancy; Count V, Vandalism/Damage to Property; Count VI, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and Count VII, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.

DISCUSSION

Lee urges the Court to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Texas on two grounds: (1) venue is improper pursuant to § 1406(a); and (2) the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interests of justice strongly favor a transfer under § 1404.¹ The Court analyzes each accordingly.

A. Motion to Transfer for Improper Venue

Under 28 U.S.C.A § 1406(a), when a case is filed in the wrong district or division, the court shall dismiss or transfer the case to any district or division in which it could have been brought. For venue purposes, a civil action may be brought in:

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;

(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated; or

(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Plaintiff contends that venue is proper under the second prong because the harm giving rise to the defamation-related claims occurred in Plaintiff's home state of Illinois. More directly, the vandalism also occurred in Illinois. Lee counters that the venue analysis focuses on where the defendant's actions occurred (which is largely in Texas), and not where the plaintiff suffered harm. See Moran Indus., Inc. v. Higdon, 2008 WL 4874114, at *5 (N.D. Ill. 2008).

It is irrefutable that the vandalism of Plaintiff's car in Illinois, though egregious, is just one of the numerous allegations against Lee in Plaintiff's Complaint and is not, alone, sufficient to support venue in Illinois. The bulk of Plaintiff's Complaint relates to Lee's alleged wrongful conduct with respect to making defamatory statements, invading Plaintiff's privacy, and engaging in a campaign to destroy Plaintiff'sreputation. The Court accordingly considers whether the actions giving rise to Plaintiff's defamation-related claims substantially occurred in Illinois.

Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because the events giving rise to Plaintiff's defamation claim, i.e., the reputational harm suffered, occurred in Illinois. "The principal injury giving rise to a defamation claim occurs where [Plaintiff's] reputation would suffer the most harm—where [he] lives and works and where the people with whom [he] has personal or commercial relationships reside." Basile v. Prometheus Global Media, LLC, 2016 WL 2987004, at *5 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (citing Kamelgard v. Macura, 585 F.3d 334, 342 (7th Cir. 2009)). That Lee acted from Texas when she allegedly posted defamatory statements and salacious content regarding Plaintiff is irrelevant. Plaintiff's reputational harm gives rise to his defamation claims against Lee. This harm occurred substantially in Illinois, where Plaintiff resides, works, and has many professional and social contacts.

Lee contends that Plaintiff's supportive authorities are distinguishable and uninstructive to the case at bar because they involved defamatory statements made in Illinois or publications printed in Illinois. See Basile, 2016 WL 2897004, at *5 (defamatory statements...