United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
LINDA D. MALLOY, Plaintiff,
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [#34]
Page Hood Chief Judge.
response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Defendant
filed a Motion to Dismiss on October 10, 2017. Dkt. No. 34.
Plaintiff has filed a response, and the Court held a hearing
on the Motion to Dismiss on December 20, 2017. For the
reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendant's Motion
STATEMENT OF FACTS
February 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court
against Defendant, a religious organization also known as the
“Jehovah Witnesses.” On May 2, 2017, Plaintiff
filed an Amended Complaint. A clerk's entry of default
was entered on May 24, 2017, but it was set aside on August
30, 2017 due to improper service. After acceptance of service
of the Amended Complaint, Defendant filed the instant Motion
Amended Complaint consists of 752 pages (her initial
complaint was 174 pages). Plaintiff asserts six claims in her
Amended Complaint, one count based on an alleged violation of
each of the following federal laws: (1) 18 U.S.C. §
1201; (2) 18 U.S.C. §241; (3) Title VII (42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e(b)); (4) 18 U.S.C. § 1346; (5) 18 U.S.C.
§ 2340A; and (6) Title IX of the Educational Amendments
of 1972. Plaintiff's claims stem from a number of alleged
actions by Defendant that harmed Plaintiff, including:
[K]idnapping in infancy and as a young adult, [being]
separated from parent, family and country for 53 yrs.[, ]
[Defendant] unlawfully took my children and had adopted,
arranged (5) sexual aggravated offenses including statutory,
mutilated and dismembered, denied education for self and
children, denied legitimate employment for 38 yrs,
orchestrated (5) car accidents to injure-causing multiple
injuries, defamation of character, physical and mental
torture for 16 yrs, physical abuse for 49 yrs, monopolized
and defrauded of revenue, secretively implanted the Nkultra
Military Device, forged identity, inundated compulsive
conceptions, attempts of murder, inventions of criminal an[d]
psychological incidents, 30 yrs. of destruction of property,
innumerable irreversible damages and 53 yrs in a conspiracy
that denies liberty and justice and coerces slavery.
See Dkt. No. 11, PgID 1204.
APPLICABLE LAW & ANALYSIS
Personal Jurisdiction - Rule 12(b)(2)
defendant files a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(2), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that
personal jurisdiction over the defendant exists. Neogen
Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d 883, 887 (6th
Cir. 2002); Theunissen v. Matthews, 935 F.2d 1454,
1458 (6th Cir. 1991). In addressing a motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction, the Court may, in its
discretion: (1) conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve any
factual issues, (2) proceed to discovery, or (3) decide the
issue based on the pleadings and affidavits alone.
McCluskey v. Belford High Sch., 795 F.Supp.2d 608,
615 (E.D.Mich. 2010) (citing Serras v. First Tenn. Bank
Nat. Assn., 875 F.2d 1212, 1214 (6th Cir. 1989) (the
court may conduct an evidentiary hearing or allow discovery
if the written submissions raise disputed issues of fact or
seem to require determinations of credibility)).
the Court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing, it must
consider the pleadings and affidavits in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Lifestyle Lift Holding Co.,
Inc. v. Prendiville, 768 F.Supp.2d 929, 932 (E.D. Mich.
2011). “In this circumstance, the plaintiff must make a
prima facie showing of jurisdiction; the court does not
consider the controverting assertions of the party moving for
dismissal.” Id. In a diversity case, the
plaintiff has established a prima facie case when it shows
that the federal court's exercise of personal
jurisdiction over the defendants is authorized by both the
law of the forum state and the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Neogen Corp., 282 F.3d at 888.
federal district court applies the jurisdictional statute, or
long-arm statute, of the state in which it sits. See,
e.g., Amway Corp. v. Kope Food Products, Inc., 840
F.Supp. 78, 80 (W.D. Mich. 1993). Michigan's long-arm
statute allows Michigan courts to exercise jurisdiction to
the full extent allowed by the federal due process
requirements. Michigan Coal. of Radioactive Material
Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 954 F.2d 1174, 1176 (6th
Cir. 1992). In order for a Michigan court's exercise of
jurisdiction over a defendant to be consistent with due
process, a plaintiff must show that the defendant had
“certain minimum contacts with [Michigan] such that
maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions