JAMES C. FOX, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the court on a number of motions. The complaint [DE-1] alleges various defamation and unfair competition claims related to postings on www.localdirtbags.com and names the Defendants as "John and Jane Does." After filing the complaint, Plaintiff Todd Goodman ("Goodman") sent the summons and complaint to Aplus.net, the business name listed on www.localdirtbags.com (hereinafter "localdirtbags"). However, it turned out that Aplus.net was not responsible for the content on the website. Instead, Aplus.net apparently licensed its name and business address for use on the localdirtbags website, presumably because the actual website author wanted to conceal her identity. When Aplus.net received a copy of the summons and complaint, it forwarded the documents to Linda Lagoy, who has entered an appearance pro se in the instant action and admits that she is the website author. See Answer [DE-12] ¶¶ 20, 21, 29.
When Lagoy made her appearance, motions practice began in earnest. Lagoy immediately filed a "motion to dismiss and in the alternative motion for extension of time to file answer" [DE-7], alleging that Goodman failed to properly effect service under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Goodman, in turn, observed that Lagoy's response was not timely and promptly filed a motion for entry of default [DE-8]. Subsequently (and before the court had ruled on either motion), Lagoy filed a "Motion to Dismiss, Answer, and Defenses" [DE-12]. This "motion" provides multiple arguments for dismissal, including an argument that Goodman's false advertising claim under the Lanham Act fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The motion also provides a full answer to Goodman's complaint, including numbered responses corresponding to all 172 paragraphs of Goodman's 84-page complaint. All of these motions have been fully briefed and are ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, the second motion to dismiss [DE-12] is ALLOWED as to the Lanham Act claims and that claim is DISMISSED with prejudice. The court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims and those claims are also DISMISSED. The remaining motions are DENIED.
Goodman has been the target of an extraordinarily aggressive smear campaign on the localdirtbags website. Goodman, a licensed auto mechanic, owns and operates Affordable Transmissions, a general automotive and transmission repair shop in Raleigh, North Carolina. He also owns a number of similar automotive repair businesses in eastern North Carolina. The localdirtbags website is apparently devoted to ruining Goodman's personal and business reputation. The articles and associated comments allege that Goodman cheats customers by, among other things, rebuilding transmissions that do not need repair, refusing to fix substandard work without additional payment, and generally overcharging customers. In addition, the website posts various articles regarding Goodman's alleged criminal record and alleges that Goodman remains an incalcitrant criminal and extortonist.
The website is organized as a "blog" that contains various articles regarding Goodman and his associates and allows users to post comments below the articles. The articles themselves contain most of the factual content regarding Goodman's alleged deceptive business practices and alleged criminal activities. Goodman does not quote from the articles in the complaint, but he has attached the articles to the complaint and incorporated them by reference. The "Mike and Tiffany" article [DE-1-14, Ex. 13a] is representative. Goodman allegedly quoted a price of $800 to $1500 to "Mike and Tiffany" to rebuild the transmission in one of their vehicles. After saving up for a year, the couple returned to Affordable Transmission and Goodman's employees rebuilt the transmission. When Tiffany returned to retrieve the vehicle and pay for the work, Goodman allegedly charged her $2,300. Because the couple had anticipated a maximum price of $1,500 (which they had spent a year saving), Tiffany was forced to arrange a payment plan. Goodman allegedly required Tiffany to write out a check for $800, which he agreed not to cash if the couple made the monthly payments.
Tiffany noticed that the transmission was slipping after leaving the store. She returned to Affordable the next morning and an employee took the car for a test drive. The employee opined that nothing was wrong with the transmission and Tiffany left again. Shortly after leaving, the transmission fluid began leaking and Tiffany drove the car to a new mechanic, who informed her a seal was broken on the transmission. When Tiffany asked Goodman to make the necessary repairs, he asked for additional money. Tiffany and Mike apparently decided to take their business elsewhere at that point. However, the parade of horribles did not end. When the couple missed a payment on their $800 debt, Goodman allegedly cashed the (worthless) $800 check and "had the nerve to prosecute them for a bad check." [DE-1-14, Ex. 13a].
The remaining articles on the website either allege similar experiences with Goodman's businesses or denigrate his character directly. Their substance can be inferred from the titles: "Another Victim of Todd Goodman" [DE-1-7, -8, Ex. 7a, Ex. 7b]; "Your Neighbor the Felon" [DE-1-3, Ex. 3]; "Goodman's Conviction for Extortion" [DE-1-10, Ex. 9]; "Victim of Todd Goodman" [DE-1-12, Ex. 11]. Each of these articles (and others) are attached to Goodman's complaint and incorporated by reference.
Goodman's complaint also contains numerous quotations from the "comments" sections underneath the articles. Because the substantive content of these postings is significant to the analysis below, the court will recite some representative samples of the comments on the website. In doing so, the court emphasizes that none of these statements (or the articles), to the extent they allege facts at all, are supported by any evidence at this stage of the proceedings. As quoted in Goodman's complaint, the localdirtbags website contains the following allegations:
Compl. [DE-1] ¶¶ 51(a), 54(b), 63(c), 63(h) (capital letters and errors in original).
In addition, Goodman alleges that the website author herself posted most of the comments associated with the articles under various pseudonyms and that any comments that reflect positively on Goodman's auto repair businesses are immediately deleted. As discussed above, Linda Lagoy has entered a notice of appearance pro se in this matter and she admits that she is the website creator and author of many of the articles. As of March 25, 2014, the website remains operational. See Local Dirtbags, http://www.localdirtbags.com (last visited March 25, 2014).
Lagoy has filed a motion to dismiss Goodman's Lanham Act claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The Lanham prohibits, among other things, the "use[] in commerce [of] any . . . false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which . . . in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities. . . ." 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B). Although Goodman variously denominates his Lanham Act claim as a "false designation of origin" or "false representation" claim, in reality he brings a claim for false advertising. Goodman's allegations precisely track the Lanham Act language, quoted above, that allows for civil claims for false advertising.
PBM Prods. LLC v. Mead Johnson & Co., 639 F.3d 111, 120 (4th Cir. 2011); Scotts Co. v. United Indus., 315 F.3d 264, 272 (4th Cir. 2002); Cashmere & Camel Hair Mfrs. Inst. v. Saks Fifth Ave., 284 F.3d 302, 310-11 (1st Cir. 2002). Although the Fourth Circuit has not defined the term "commercial advertisement," several circuit courts and district courts within the Fourth Circuit have adopted the four-part test from Gordon & Breach Science Publishers v. American Institute of Physics, 859 F.Supp. 1521 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). See, e.g., Podiatrist Ass'n, Inc. v. La Cruz Azul De Puerto Rico, Inc., 332 F.3d 6, 19 (1st Cir. 2003); Rice v. Fox Broad. Co., 330 F.3d 1170, 1181 (9th Cir. 2003); Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 222 F.3d 1262, 1273-74 (10th Cir. 2000); Design Res., Inc. v. Leather Indus. of Am., 900 F.Supp.2d 612, 619-20 (M.D.N.C. 2012).
Under the Gordon & Breach test, a particular statement is only "commercial advertisement or promotion" where it is "(1) commercial speech; (2) by a defendant who is in commercial competition with plaintiff; (3) for the purpose of influencing consumers to buy defendant's goods or services [and the representations must be] (4) disseminated sufficiently to the relevant purchasing public." Boykin Anchor Co. v. AT&T Corp., 825 F.Supp.2d 706, 710 (E.D.N.C. 2011) (quoting Gordon & Breach, 859 F. Supp. at 1535-36); Tao of Sys. Integration, Inc. v. Analytical Servs. & Materials, Inc., 299 F.Supp.2d 565, 572 (E.D. Va. 2004). Commercial speech, in turn, is "speech that does no more than propose a commercial transaction[,]" United States v. Edge Broad. Co., 509 U.S. 418, 426 (1993), or speech "related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience." City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410, 422 (1993).
Courts have also looked to the legislative history of the Lanham Act for guidance on the definition of commercial speech. See Gordon & Breach, 859 F. Supp. at 1533; Wojnarowicz v. Am. Family Ass'n, 745 F.Supp. 130, 141-42 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). For example, in discussing the purposes of the amendment adding the false advertising cause of action to the Lanham Act, Representative Kastenmeier stated:
135 Cong. Rec. H1216-17 (daily ed. April 13, 1989); see also 134 Cong. Rec. 31,851 (Oct. 19, 1988) (statement of Rep. Kastenmeier) (explaining the reach of the false advertising claim embodied in § 1125(a)(1)(B) "specifically extends only to false and misleading speech that is encompassed within the `commercial speech' doctrine developed by the United States Supreme Court."). Summarizing this legislative history, the Southern District of New York has noted, "[The Lanham Act] has never been applied to stifle criticism of the goods or services of another by one, such as a consumer advocate, who is not engaged in marketing or promoting a competitive product or service."
Here, Goodman has failed to sufficiently allege that these internet postings constitute commercial speech or that they were made "by a defendant in commercial competition with plaintiff." Gordon & Breach, 859 F. Supp. at 1535-36. The complaint contains two allegations related to the commercial interests of the Doe Defendants. The first is a legal conclusion that the postings and articles represent "commercial activities in connection with the commercial advertising and promotion of Doe Defendants' services and products,"
This allegation is plainly insufficient to state a false advertising claim. That the Defendant operator
Other than the allegation that the website author has a commercial interest in visits to her website, the complaint utterly fails to allege any commercial interest in the actual content of any of the articles or comments. Nor can the court draw a reasonable inference in Goodman's favor on this issue. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 ("A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the Defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."). As can be seen from even a cursory review of the comments and articles discussed above, the statements do not propose a commercial transaction in any traditional sense of that phrase and the court cannot reasonably infer that the statements relate solely to the speaker and his audience's economic interests.
The complaint also fails to allege that any of these articles or comments come from Goodman's competitors, who would have an economic interest in disparaging Goodman's businesses.
The court acknowledges that this issue is complicated by the fact that Goodman does not know the identities of the defendants at this stage of the proceedings. Indeed, the cases the court has uncovered in which internet postings did not constitute commercial advertising or promotion involved defendants whose identities were known and where it was obvious that the plaintiff and defendant were not in commercial competition with each other. See Shell, 899 F. Supp. 2d at 1060-62; Boykin Anchor Co., 825 F. Supp. 2d at 709-11; Nemet Chevrolet, 564 F. Supp. 2d at 546. It is possible that some of the Doe Defendants are commercial competitors of the plaintiff who have decided to post negative comments in an effort to drive business away from Goodman. See NTP Marble Inc. v. AAA Hellenic Marble, Inc., 2012 WL 607975, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 2012) (false advertising claim proceeded when discovery revealed competitors were responsible for negative reviews on consumer review websites). As explained above, however, the court finds that this is not a plausible inference given the content of the statements. In addition, the court has reviewed all of the numerous statements in this complaint and none of them outright encourage the readers to take their business to a specific competitor. Although in general a commercial advertisement under the Lanham Act does not need to contain a business solicitation, see Neuros Co. Ltd. v. KTurbo, Inc., 698 F.3d 514, 522 (7th Cir. 2012), the fact that no competitor solicitations occur in any of the numerous postings on the website cuts against any potential inference that these postings come from competitors. Compare NTP Marble, 2012 WL 607975, at *7 (denying motion for summary judgment on false advertising claim despite absence of outright business solicitations where evidence suggested economic motivation for internet reviews).
To summarize, the court finds that Goodman has not sufficiently alleged that these articles and comments constitute commercial advertising or promotion under the Gordon & Breach factors. The complaint's only allegation regarding the Defendants' commercial interest in the website is not sufficient to satisfy the commercial speech doctrine. In addition, the facts alleged in the complaint do not allow the court to draw a reasonable inference that these comments come from defendants who have a commercial interest in disparaging Goodman's reputation. Accordingly, the court finds that the complaint fails to state a false advertising claim, and count one is therefore DISMISSED.
The court's jurisdiction in this action is predicated on original jurisdiction over the Lanham Act claim, and supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, because the court is dismissing Goodman's federal claim, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's other claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see Hunt v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 480 F. App'x 730, 732 (4th Cir. 2012). In this regard, the Supreme Court has stated that, when "federal claims are dismissed before trial . . . state claims should be dismissed as well." United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). The court has considerable discretion in deciding whether to extend supplemental jurisdiction. Hunt, 480 F. App'x at 732. In this case, the court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over Goodman's state law claims, and they are DISMISSED without prejudice. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), the period of limitation for any supplemental claim shall be tolled while the claim is pending in federal court and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed.
Finally, the court notes that it considered dismissing this complaint for failure to follow Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The eighty-four page complaint consists primarily of lengthy block quotations from the localdirtbags website. After sixty-one pages of quotations from the website, the reader is finally informed of the first claim for relief on page sixty-two. And even within the claims for relief, there are numerous instances of additional (and repetitive) block quotations from the website. Rule 8 requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Although the court recognizes that the new pleading standards under Twombly and Iqbal require more factual allegations than may have been previously necessary, there is nothing short or plain about this complaint. Counsel is forewarned that future complaints like this may be subject to summary dismissal for failure to follow Rule 8.
In summary, Lagoy's motion to dismiss the Lanham Act claim [DE-12] is ALLOWED and the Lanham Act claim is DISMISSED with prejudice. The court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims in this lawsuit, and the complaint is DISMISSED. The first motion to dismiss [DE-7] is DENIED as moot, and the motion for entry of default [DE-8] is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
