Reported / Citable
Background
Pamela De Somov sued Julie Barnes and Margaret Sano for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, cybersquatting, invasion of privacy, copyright infringement, and tortious interference with business relations. She alleged that the defendants made false statements to her employer, registered domain names using her name, posted defamatory material online, and published her copyrighted artwork and personal photographs without permission.
After De Somov was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, the parties filed numerous motions. The defendants moved to dismiss on improper-venue and limitations grounds. De Somov sought to strike their filings but did not substantively oppose the dismissal motions.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Dustin M. Howell recommended granting the defendants’ motions and dismissing De Somov’s claims for improper venue. Although De Somov alleged that much of the relevant harm occurred while she lived in Travis County, the complaint identified no substantial defendant conduct occurring in the Western District of Texas. Both defendants were alleged to reside in New York, and the challenged domain registrations and speech were not alleged to have occurred in the district.
The report explained that a plaintiff’s experience of injury in a district does not, standing alone, establish venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). The inquiry focuses on the events or omissions giving rise to the claims—particularly the defendants’ conduct—not merely where the plaintiff felt the effects. The magistrate judge also recommended dismissing all remaining pending motions as moot and canceling the referral.
Key Takeaways
- Venue under § 1391(b)(2) depends on where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.
- Experiencing the effects of alleged wrongdoing in a district is insufficient by itself when the relevant defendant conduct occurred elsewhere.
- The ruling is a report and recommendation; the parties may object before the district judge acts on it.
Why It Matters
The recommendation underscores that plaintiffs asserting internet-based tort and intellectual-property claims must connect the defendants’ underlying conduct—not simply the resulting injury—to the chosen forum. Allegations about a plaintiff’s residence or where reputational and economic harm was felt may not establish venue.
Because this is a magistrate judge’s recommendation rather than a final district-court ruling, the district judge retains responsibility for deciding whether to adopt it after the objection period.