De Ciel v. Porter

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California grants the defendant's motion to dismiss for improper venue, improper service of process, and failure to state a claim, while denying the motion as to subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. The court holds that 28 U.S.C. § 4101 does not create a private right of action and that the alleged events support venue in the Eastern District of California rather than the Northern District. The defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion is denied without prejudice, and the plaintiff is given leave to amend by September 19, 2025.

Holdings

1. The court had subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff plausibly alleged diversity jurisdiction, even though her claim under 28 U.S.C. § 4101 did not present a colorable federal question.
2. The motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was denied because Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of specific personal jurisdiction based on allegations that Defendant committed the alleged intentional tort while present in California.
3. Venue was improper in the Northern District of California, so dismissal under Rule 12(b)(3) was warranted.
4. Service was invalid because Plaintiff served the summons and complaint at the Wolf Law Firm without establishing that the firm was authorized to accept service for Defendant, and email service did not satisfy Rule 4(e)(2).
5. Plaintiff failed to state an actionable defamation claim because 28 U.S.C. § 4101 does not create a private right of action and the complaint did not adequately plead a claim under California defamation law.
6. The Anti-SLAPP motion was denied without prejudice because the action was dismissed on other grounds and Plaintiff pleaded only a federal claim, while the Anti-SLAPP statute applies in federal court only in connection with state-law claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff established federal-question or diversity subject matter jurisdiction.
2. Whether the court could exercise general or specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
3. Whether venue was proper in the Northern District of California.
4. Whether service on the Wolf Law Firm and by email constituted valid service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e).
5. Whether Plaintiff stated an actionable defamation claim under 28 U.S.C. § 4101 or California law.
6. Whether Defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion should be entertained or granted.

Disposition

dismissed