IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

LAURA LOOMER,

Plaintiff,

v.

FACEBOOK, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 9:20-cv-80484-RS

The Honorable Rodney Smith

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF 

LAURA LOOMER’S MOTION FOR REMAND 

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Laura Loomer has already sued Facebook, Inc. for the same conduct as in this 

lawsuit. See Loomer v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 9:19-cv-80893-RS (S.D. Fla. 2019) (“Loomer 

I”). But Ms. Loomer failed to take any discovery in Loomer I, and about nine hours after this

Court denied her motion for an extension, she filed this lawsuit in Florida state court (“Loomer 

II”). Even though this lawsuit asserts the exact same claims based on the exact same allegedly 

defamatory statements, Ms. Loomer urges the Court to remand. The Court should reject this 

transparent attempt to circumvent its order denying Ms. Loomer’s requested extension.

Ms. Loomer’s claim that diversity is lacking is frivolous. As she admitted in Loomer I, she 

is a citizen of Florida and Facebook is a citizen of Delaware. Now, Ms. Loomer claims Facebook 

is incorporated in Florida. It is not. As its publicly available filings show, Facebook has been 

incorporated in Delaware since 2004, and its principal place of business is in Menlo Park, 

California. The Florida entity whose corporate filing Ms. Loomer references, “Facebook Inc.” 

(with no comma) has no affiliation with Facebook, Inc. (with a comma). 

This Court should deny Ms. Loomer’s Motion for Remand (ECF No. 8). 

Case 9:20-cv-80484-RS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2020 Page 1 of 7
2

II. BACKGROUND

On July 8, 2019, Ms. Loomer filed a lawsuit against Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”), asserting 

claims for defamation arising from Facebook’s removal of her accounts from its platform for 

violating its Community Standards. See Loomer I, ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). In both Ms. Loomer’s 

Complaint and her Amended Complaint, she stated that “[t]his Court has subject matter 

jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 under diversity of citizenship. The 

parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” Id. ¶ 1; 

see also id., ECF No. 7 (“Am. Compl.”) ¶ 1. Ms. Loomer alleged she is a citizen of Florida and 

Facebook is “a corporation incorporated in the state of Delaware.” Loomer I, Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 

4.

On August 30, 2019, the Loomer I Court entered its Order Setting Civil Trial Date, Pretrial 

Deadlines, and Referral to Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 21), which required the parties to complete 

fact discovery by February 24, 2020. See id. at 2. Ms. Loomer never served any discovery 

requests. Nor did she notice any depositions until, on February 13, 2020, her counsel served 

Facebook’s counsel with two deposition notices. See Loomer I, ECF No. 37, 37-1. Both notices 

scheduled the depositions to take place in San Jose, California on February 24, 2020—the fact 

discovery cutoff. See id. On February 18, 2020, Facebook’s counsel informed Ms. Loomer’s 

counsel that Facebook would not produce these witnesses for depositions because Ms. Loomer 

had failed to comply with Local Rule 26.1(h), which requires that “a party desiring to take the 

deposition in another State of any person upon oral examination shall give at least fourteen (14) 

days’ notice in writing to every other party to the action,” and states that “[f]ailure to comply with 

this rule obviates the need for [a] protective order.” S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(h) (emphasis added). 

Case 9:20-cv-80484-RS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2020 Page 2 of 7
3

Ms. Loomer filed a motion asking the Court to extend the discovery deadline by 91 days. 

See Loomer I, ECF No. 39. On February 28, 2020, the Court denied the motion, finding that Ms. 

Loomer “failed to establish good cause” for extending the deadline. See Loomer I, ECF No. 43. 

Approximately nine hours later, Ms. Loomer filed a nearly identical complaint against Facebook 

in Florida state court. See ECF No. 1-1 (“Loomer II Compl.”). The Loomer II Complaint asserted

the same causes of action based on the same allegedly defamatory statements, and included no 

additional parties. See Loomer I, ECF No. 52-1 (redline comparison between Loomer I Amended 

Complaint and Loomer II Complaint). As in Loomer I, Ms. Loomer identifies Facebook in the 

Loomer II Complaint as having an address in Menlo Park, California, and alleges that Facebook is 

“a corporation incorporated in the state of Delaware.” ECF No. 1-1 at 1. The Loomer II Complaint 

also states that it seeks $50 million in damages from Facebook. See id. at 10. 

On March 24, 2020, Facebook removed Loomer II to this Court. See ECF No. 1. Facebook 

also filed a notice (ECF No. 4) marking Loomer II as related to Loomer I, after which the Court 

transferred Loomer II to the Honorable Rodney Smith, who is presiding over Loomer I. See ECF 

No. 7. On March 27, 2020, Ms. Loomer filed this motion, claiming—contrary to her 

representations in Loomer I—that “there is not complete diversity among the parties.” ECF No. 8

at 1. In support, Ms. Loomer states that “Defendant Facebook was initially incorporated in the 

state of Florida,” citing Wikipedia. Id. at 2. She further contends that “Defendant Facebook is 

still incorporated in the state of Florida, and maintains active registration,” id., for which she cites 

a corporate filing with the Florida Division of Corporations. See ECF No. 8-1 at Ex. A. 

Ms. Loomer submitted as an exhibit to her remand motion an amended complaint 

purportedly filed in state court, and then filed the same amended complaint as a separate docket 

entry in this Court on March 31, 2020. ECF No. 9 (“Loomer II Amended Complaint”). The 

Case 9:20-cv-80484-RS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2020 Page 3 of 7
4

Loomer II Amended Complaint names “Facebook Inc.” (without a comma) as the defendant in the 

caption, but lists the Delaware service address for Facebook, Inc., and otherwise refers to 

“Facebook, Inc.” in the body of the pleading.1 Ms. Loomer has not served Facebook with either 

complaint in this matter. 

The corporate filing from the Florida Division of Corporations relates to an entity named 

“Facebook Inc.” without a comma, as opposed to Defendant “Facebook, Inc.,” which has a comma. 

See ECF No. 8-1 at Ex. A. This Florida entity has no affiliation with Facebook, Inc. See

Declaration of Nicholas Wong (“Wong Decl.”) ¶ 5. As set forth in the Wong Declaration and the 

publicly available filings attached as exhibits thereto, Facebook, Inc.—the entity sued by Ms. 

Loomer and the operative entity for her claims—was incorporated in Delaware in 2004. Id. ¶ 2. 

At all times relevant to this action—including on the date she filed the complaint in Loomer II—

Facebook has been a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Menlo Park, 

California. Id. ¶¶ 2–3. 

III. ARGUMENT

The argument in this Response is simple: to the extent that Ms. Loomer seeks to maintain 

any claims against Facebook, Inc. (as opposed to the unrelated Florida entity “Facebook Inc.”), 

remand is improper because federal diversity jurisdiction exists. 

District courts have original jurisdiction “of all civil actions where the matter in 

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between 

. . . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (allowing 

 

1

In making this filing, Facebook does not respond on behalf of the Florida entity “Facebook Inc.,” 

nor do the undersigned counsel represent that entity. Facebook simply asks the Court to rule that,

to the extent the Loomer II Amended Complaint still asserts claims against it, those claims should 

remain in federal court and not be remanded to state court. 

Case 9:20-cv-80484-RS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2020 Page 4 of 7
5

removal of any case over which district court has original jurisdiction). Ms. Loomer does not 

dispute that the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, nor could she, as she seeks more than $50 

million in damages. See Loomer II, Am. Compl. at 10. Nor does she dispute that she is a citizen 

of Florida. Instead, she claims Facebook is also a citizen of Florida. She is wrong. 

“[A] corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which 

it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business

. . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). A corporation’s principal place of business “should normally be 

the place where the corporation maintains its headquarters—provided that the headquarters is the 

actual center of direction, control, and coordination . . . .” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 93 

(2010).

Facebook is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business—i.e., its 

headquarters—in Menlo Park, California. Wong Decl. ¶ 2. It is, therefore, a citizen of Delaware 

and California, and there is no basis for Ms. Loomer to argue that Facebook is a citizen of Florida. 

In fact, Ms. Loomer admitted the opposite in Loomer I, alleging that the parties are “citizens of 

different states.” See Loomer I, ECF No. 7 ¶ 1. And numerous courts have reached the same 

conclusion. See, e.g., Havensight Capital, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. CV 15-3758 FMO

(MRWX), 2015 WL 12766168, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 21, 2015) (“[T]he court determined that 

[plaintiff] properly alleged that Facebook was a citizen of the state of Delaware, its state of 

incorporation, and California, its principal place of business.”); In re Facebook, Inc., Consumer 

Privacy User Profile Litig., 354 F. Supp. 3d 1122, 1124 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (noting that, for purposes 

of diversity jurisdiction, “Facebook is a citizen of California and Delaware”). There is no reason 

to hold otherwise here. The entity “Facebook Inc.” to which Ms. Loomer points is not related to 

Case 9:20-cv-80484-RS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2020 Page 5 of 7
6

Facebook, Inc. or the facts in this case, and thus cannot provide a basis for remand. See Wong 

Decl. ¶ 5.

Further, Ms. Loomer’s allegation that Facebook was “initially” formed as a Florida LLC

in the early 2000s, citing to Wikipedia, does not defeat diversity jurisdiction—all that matters is 

that Facebook was only incorporated in Delaware when Ms. Loomer filed her complaint. See 

MGA Entm’t, Inc. v. Singing Mach. Co., No. CV10-3761 DOC (RNBX), 2010 WL 11549888, at 

*4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2010) (rejecting argument that defendant was non-diverse because it was 

“originally incorporated in California,” noting that “diversity of citizenship is measured at the time 

of the Complaint’s filing. Defendant is no longer incorporated in California; it has since filed 

articles of incorporation in Delaware.”) (internal citation omitted); see also City of Waukegan v. 

Bond Safeguard Ins. Co., No. 15 C 3007, 2015 WL 6870106, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 6, 2015)

(denying motion to remand where defendant, although originally incorporated in Illinois, was later 

re-incorporated in South Dakota, noting: “What matters . . . for purposes of citizenship is 

[defendant’s] state of incorporation and the principal place of business at the time that the current 

complaint was filed.”).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Facebook requests that the Court deny Ms. Loomer’s 

Motion for Remand.

Dated: April 10, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

s/Brian W. Toth 

GELBER SCHACHTER & GREENBERG, P.A.

Brian W. Toth

Florida Bar No. 57708

Natalia B. McGinn

Florida Bar No. 1011385

Case 9:20-cv-80484-RS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2020 Page 6 of 7
7

1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2010

Miami, Florida 33131

Phone: (305) 728-0965

btoth@gsgpa.com

nmcginn@gsgpa.com

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

Laura R. Handman*

Alison Schary*

Chelsea T. Kelly*

1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Suite 800

Washington, DC 20006

Phone: (202) 973-4224

laurahandman@dwt.com

alisonschary@dwt.com

chelseakelly@dwt.com

*Pro hac vice motions pending

Counsel for Defendant Facebook, Inc.

.

Case 9:20-cv-80484-RS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2020 Page 7 of 7