United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
A. DICLERICO, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Roberson, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint, naming
YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Blogspot.com, Patreon,
and GoFundMe as defendants. The defendants have filed motions
to dismiss, asserting that the court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, that Roberson fails
to state a claim, that Roberson impermissibly relies on
DeLima's complaint, and other grounds. Some defendants
also seek a change of venue. Roberson did not respond to the
Scope of Complaint
pro se complaint is cursory at best. As a statement of her
claims, Roberson provides the following: “Consolidated
Plaintiff's Lawsuit for Violations of Civil Rights Act,
1964, Election Rigging, Partner Compensation (YouTube and
Patreon), First Amendment Rights, Censorship, Illicit Shadow
banning of information, Cyberbullying, Copyright Infringement
Chapter 5, Illicit Monitoring, Unmasking, Defamation, NIED
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.” Instead of
providing allegations to support her claims, Roberson refers
to “Lead Plaintiff Natasha DeLima, who has cited all of
the like issues from tampering w/ the election, harassing
users,, [sic] who suffered discrimination based on sexuality,
political beliefs, and popularity.” Roberson further
states that she “concurs with the lawsuit complaints of
Natasha DeLima and has suffered similar discrimination and
harassment, and felt in danger and unsafe, as though people
could personally come after her for her rights to use the
internet, this should never be a real fear, but it is.”
filed her complaint, DeLima v. YouTube, et al.,
17-cv-733-PB (D.N.H. Dec. 21, 2017), on the same day that
Roberson filed her complaint. As the defendants point out,
Roberson cannot rely on the allegations in DeLima's
complaint to support her claims.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(c) allows incorporation by
reference within a pleading or between filings in the same
case, the rule does not permit incorporation by reference of
allegations from an entirely separate case. See, e.g.,
Kane v. R.J. Donovan State Prison, 2018 WL 400404,
at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2018); Crawford v.
McFadden, 2017 WL 7689416, at *2 (D.S.C. May 4, 2017)
(citing cases); Macias v. New Mexico Dep't of
Labor, 300 F.R.D. 529, 562 (D.N.M. Mar. 31, 2014); 5A
Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice
and Procedure § 1326 (3d ed. 2018).
the only allegations considered for purposes of the pending
motions are those in Roberson's complaint. The
allegations in DeLima's complaint and in any other cases
are not incorporated by reference into Roberson's
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
court must determine whether subject matter jurisdiction
exists before considering the merits of the complaint.
Acosta-Ramirez v. Banco Popular de P.R., 712 F.3d
14, 18 (1st Cir. 2013). The plaintiff generally bears the
burden of showing subject matter jurisdiction. Aversa v.
United States, 99 F.3d 1200, 1209-10 (1st Cir. 1996).
When jurisdiction is challenged under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1), the court takes the factual allegations
in the complaint as true, with reasonable inferences in the
plaintiff's favor, and may also consider other evidence
that is submitted. Merlonghi v. United States, 620
F.3d 50, 54 (1st Cir. 2010).
complaint, Roberson states that jurisdiction is based on
diversity of citizenship. She also states that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75, 000. Some defendants move to dismiss
on the ground that Roberson has not shown that the case meets
the amount in controversy requirement, $75, 000, under 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a).
complaint, standing alone, does not show the value of
Roberson's claims beyond her own statement. “The
amount in controversy alleged in a plaintiff's complaint
‘is accepted if made in good faith, ' Dart
Cherokee Basin Operating CO., LLC v. Ownens, 135 S.Ct.
547, 553 (2014), and ‘[i]t must appear to a legal
certainty that the claim is really for less than the
jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal.' St. Paul
Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289
(1938).” Kersey v. Staples, 2018 WL 2077598,
at *2 (D. Mass. May 2, 2018). “Once the damages
allegation is challenged, however, the party seeking to
invoke jurisdiction has the burden of alleging with
sufficient particularity facts indicating that it is not a
legal certainty that the claim involves less than the
jurisdictional amount.” Spielman v. Genzyme
Corp., 251 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2001) (internal quotation
complaint includes no facts to show the amount in
controversy, and she filed nothing in response to the motions
to dismiss to support the amount in controversy. The
defendants plausibly argue that the claims do not meet the
required amount. Therefore, based on the record ...