A federal judge from the District of Hawaii has transferred a legal action filed against the Boston Red Sox and a public relations firm to the District of Massachusetts after finding that the offending behavior occurred in Massachusetts as well as the fact that all the defendants reside there.
The motion to transfer was actually made by the pro se plaintiff in hopes that the court would grant that motion rather than grant the defendants’ separate motions to dismiss the claim. While the court acquiesced to the plaintiff, it did not mince words in describing the weakness of the plaintiff’s claim.
By way of background, Brian Evans, while living in Hawaii, created a song called “At Fenway,” which some employees of the Red Sox were smitten with. Larry Lucchino, co-owner of the Red Sox, allegedly wrote in an email in 2011 that the song was “awfully nice. Let’s find a way to make good use of it.” David Friedman, vice president of the Red Sox, allegedly sent a letter to Evans’ Hawaii address, stating that he was interested in exploring ways to use the song and giving Evans permission to contact other artists to develop a video featuring the song.
Evans subsequently moved to Massachusetts. He allegedly paid $40,000 to film the video at Fenway Park on September 25, 2012.
“A week later, on October 5, 2012, in what appears at first blush to have been an unrelated event, Evans’s mother died at Holy Family Hospital in Massachusetts,” wrote the court. “Evans then created a website that criticized Holy Family Hospital, which was part of the Steward Health Care System, for alleged medical malpractice in the treatment of his mother.”
Evans’s attempts to profit from his video were unsuccessful. The Boston Red Sox did not feature “At Fenway.” Evans alleges that, in declining to promote “At Fenway,” the Red Sox were influenced by Steward Health Care System, which was allegedly unhappy about Evans’s malpractice assertion. The Red Sox and Steward Health Care System are both represented by the same public relations firm, RBSC.
Evans claimed that the parties must have “coordinated their actions and conspired against him.” Furthermore, he alleged that the Red Sox and RBSC have interfered with his opportunities with other potential sponsorships and conspired to “torpedo” or “destroy” his music video and related business relationships.
Evans, who moved back to Hawaii, sued the Red Sox for breach of contract, interference with contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud. He also sued RBSC, alleging that it “worked in concert with the Red Sox to undermine Evans and his video.”
As mentioned above, after the defendants moved to dismiss, Evans asked the court to transfer the case, rather than grant their motion.
In considering the latter, the court reviewed 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), which states that diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship between opposing parties at the time the action is commenced. See, e.g. Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749-750 (9th Cir. 1986). Evans was able to show that he lived in Hawaii when he filed the instant action, and that there was an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, another pre-requisite.
“Of course, having subject matter jurisdiction does not necessarily mean this case should remain before this court,” wrote the court. The fact is the defendants “had little to no contact or connection to Hawaii,” meaning the Hawaii court lacked general and specific jurisdiction over them.
While the court did not want to delve too much into the “sufficiency of the factual allegations” in the complaint, it did briefly note the weakness in the plaintiff’s argument.
“This court is fully aware that the contract claim is completely devoid of any description of contract terms,” it held. “Evans says nothing about who entered into any contract or on what date. A party sued for breach of contract is entitled to some description of the contract terms that were allegedly breached. The interference with contract claim is similarly stingy on detail, and it is not clear what contract with what third party was allegedly interfered with by any defendant. Evans’s fraud claim is, of course, subject to the particularity requirement of Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These pleading matters are not, however, the subject of this court’s ruling. Having determined that it lacks personal jurisdiction and that this case should be transferred, this court leaves the sufficiency of the factual allegations to the District of Massachusetts to address.
“If the court were to address pleading matters here and to find Evans’s allegations wanting, this court would likely give Evans leave to file an amended complaint. Given the other rulings in the present order, it makes sense to leave that entire issue to the court that clearly does have personal jurisdiction.”
Brian Evans v. The Boston Red Sox, et al.; D. Haw.; CIVIL NO. 13-00262 SOM-BMK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166307; 11/22/13
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Pro se, Keaau, HI. (for defendants) Brian A. Kang, LEAD ATTORNEY, Watanabe ING & Komeiji, Honolulu, HI; Michael C. Bird, LEAD ATTORNEY, Watanabe ING LLP, Honolulu, HI. Darin Robinson Leong, Sarah O. Wang, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Marr Jones & Wang LLLP, Honolulu, HI.
