United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Northern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
F. MOORER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
January 17, 2019, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 28) which recommends that
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21) be granted.
Plaintiff Tami Harrison (“Harrison” or
“Plaintiff”) timely filed objections (Doc. 29) to
which Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook” or
“Defendant”) filed its response (Doc. 30).
due and proper consideration of all portions of this file
deemed relevant to the issues raised, and a de novo
determination of those portions of the Recommendation to
which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (Doc. 28) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of this Court.
15, 2018, Facebook filed its Motion to Dismiss pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). See Docs. 21-22.
Alternatively, Facebook moved for a transfer to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of
California. Id. Plaintiff timely responded in
opposition to the motion to dismiss. See Doc. 24.
Facebook timely replied to Plaintiff's opposition.
See Doc. 25.
January 17, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) wherein he addresses
the Motion to Dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). In the
R&R, the Magistrate Judge concludes that the Court does
not have personal jurisdiction over Facebook and recommends
Facebook's motion to dismiss be granted and
Plaintiff's action dismissed without prejudice. The
R&R does not address the Motion to Dismiss under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or the alternative request to transfer
to the Northern District of California.
objection to the R&R was filed on January 29, 2019.
See Doc. 29. In the objection, Harrison objects to
dismissal but states she “moves the Court to transfer
this case to avoid dismissal to the preferred venue and
authority of Judge if venue is improper here at stated in
reports and recommendations.” Id. at 1.
Plaintiff further states she “would like a transfer
issued if the new venue doesn't have a level of
congestion of the respective courts, dockets and the speed
with which the dispute can be resolved in an efficient and
cost effective manner.” Id. Defendant filed
its response to Plaintiff's objection, now argues against
transfer, and urges the Court to reject Plaintiff's
request for transfer.
Discussion and Analysis
Court notes that had Plaintiff consented to transfer in
response to the Motion to Dismiss, it may have been more
well-received. But, Plaintiff only consented to transfer
after the R&R was filed with its finding that the Court
lacked personal jurisdiction. Ultimately, the Magistrate
Judge's analysis is accurate and to the point. While the
Court ultimately could dismiss or transfer with regard to the
personal jurisdiction, the Court finds no basis to overrule
the well-reasoned analysis of the Magistrate Judge under
either a de novo or clearly erroneous standard.
Further, transfer would still leave the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion
to Dismiss pending for the California court's
determination. As such, the Court declines to transfer the
Court notes that this dismissal is without prejudice and
Plaintiff may refile her lawsuit in the Northern District of
California should she choose to do so. The Northern District
of California provides ample resources for pro se
plaintiffs to review before filing suit in their court.
Should Plaintiff choose to refile in California, the Court
would urge her to seek legal counsel and/or review the
reasons articulated above, it is ORDERED
(1) Plaintiff's objections (Doc. 29) are