Samuel Johnson v. Kathy Griffin
23a0240p.06 (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Specific personal jurisdiction exists over an out-of-state defendant engaging in an intentional tort via social media when the defendant's conduct is expressly aimed at the forum state, directly communicating with an entity within that state to cause harm to a resident whose professional life is centered there.
Facts:
- On April 24, 2021, Samuel Johnson had dinner at a hotel in Franklin, Tennessee, where he asked a chaperone to quiet a group of teenagers taking prom pictures.
- Johnson confronted a male teenager wearing a red prom dress, calling him an 'idiot,' while the teenager's boyfriend filmed the interaction, which escalated into Johnson attempting to smack the boyfriend's phone.
- The boyfriend posted the video on TikTok, and though TikTok deleted it, other users downloaded and reposted it to social media, including Twitter.
- On April 26, Kathy Griffin retweeted the clip to her two million followers, identifying Samuel Johnson as a Nashville-based 'healthcare-tech-growth strategist' and CEO of Tennessee-based VisuWell, tagging VisuWell directly.
- Griffin's initial tweet suggested Johnson was 'dying to be online famous' and was accompanied by a caption (not by Griffin) calling him a 'Homophobic POS in Tennessee' harassing a teenager.
- Griffin exchanged tweets with the boyfriend, thanking him for making the video 'viral' and offering to help.
- In response to Griffin’s tweets, several VisuWell customers condemned Johnson and threatened to reevaluate their business ties.
- After VisuWell fired Johnson as CEO, Griffin responded to VisuWell's announcement by inquiring if Johnson had also been removed from the Board and demanding to know what 'measures' the company was taking, warning that 'the nation will remain vigilant' if he was not.
Procedural Posture:
- Samuel Johnson and Jill Johnson sued Kathy Griffin in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville, alleging tortious interference with employment, infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and negligence.
- The district court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Kathy Griffin.
- Samuel Johnson and Jill Johnson (Appellants) appealed the district court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, with Kathy Griffin as the Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal court in Tennessee have specific personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant who used social media to target a Tennessee resident and a Tennessee-based company, directly communicating with the company to incite an employment action against the resident?
Opinions:
Majority - Sutton, C.J.
Yes, a federal court in Tennessee has specific personal jurisdiction over Kathy Griffin because her conduct was expressly aimed at Tennessee. The court concluded that Griffin's actions had more parallels to Calder v. Jones than to Walden v. Fiore. Griffin intentionally targeted Johnson, a Tennessee resident, and VisuWell, a Tennessee-based company, by emphasizing Johnson's residence and the company's location. She directly tagged VisuWell in her initial tweet and followed up with direct communications, demanding Johnson's removal from the Board and threatening ongoing vigilance if her demands were not met. The court reasoned that Griffin 'undoubtedly knew' that the 'focal point' of her tweets concerned Tennessee and that the 'brunt of the harm' would befall Johnson in Tennessee. Unlike Blessing v. Chandrasekhar, where the defendant's tweets did not include affirmative steps to communicate with individuals or entities in the forum state, Griffin's direct communications with VisuWell constituted sufficient targeting of the forum. The court held that direct communications to decision-makers in a forum state, even via social media, which lead to an individual's termination, are sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.
Concurring - Cole, J.
Yes, a federal court in Tennessee has specific personal jurisdiction over Kathy Griffin. Justice Cole concurred with the majority's decision, agreeing that Griffin's direct communications with VisuWell via Twitter subjected her to personal jurisdiction in Tennessee. The concurring opinion emphasized the application of the Sixth Circuit’s three-part test for specific jurisdiction, particularly focusing on 'purposeful availment.' Cole, J. reasoned that Griffin’s direct communications with VisuWell, allegedly intending to cause Johnson’s employment termination, clearly satisfied the purposeful availment prong, akin to sending fraudulent letters or making calls into a state to cause a consequence. The opinion acknowledged that future social media cases, especially those without direct tags or references, might require deeper scrutiny into the defendant's intent to target the forum state, distinguishing between passive internet activity and deliberately directed electronic activity.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of the Calder 'effects test' for specific personal jurisdiction in the context of intentional torts committed through social media. It establishes that directly targeting an in-state entity or individual, coupled with direct communication aimed at influencing action within the forum state, is sufficient for jurisdiction, even if the primary dissemination is broad. The ruling provides important guidance on how online conduct can be 'expressly aimed' at a forum, strengthening accountability for out-of-state actors who intentionally cause harm within a specific state via digital platforms. It also effectively distinguishes and limits the reach of previous Sixth Circuit precedent, Blessing v. Chandrasekhar, by emphasizing the importance of direct targeting and communication.
