Court Opinion

ID: 9964936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 14:04:43.886215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:49.116654
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                          Opinion filed May 1, 2024.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-1719
                       Lower Tribunal No. 21-25582
                          ________________

                                John Doe,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                           Soothe, Inc., et al.,
                                 Appellees.

      An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne Del
Rio, Judge.

     Twig, Trade, & Tribunal, PLLC, and Morgan L. Weinstein (Fort
Lauderdale), for appellant.

    Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., and Thomas A. Valdez,
Megan G. Colter and Chanelle Artiles (Tampa), for appellee Soothe, Inc.

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and GORDO, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See Medytox Sols., Inc. v. Investorshub.com, Inc., 152 So.

3d 727, 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (“The plain language of section 230 [of the

Communications Decency Act] ‘creates a federal immunity to any cause of

action that would make service providers liable for information originating

with a third-party user of the service.’” (quoting Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc.,

129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 1997))); Doe v. Am. Online, Inc., 783 So. 2d

1010, 1018 (Fla. 2001) (“We specifically concur that section 230 expressly

bars ‘any actions’ and we are compelled to give the language of this

preemptive law its plain meaning.”); White v. Discovery Commc’ns, LLC, 365

So. 3d 379, 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) (“Section 230 clearly preempts Florida

law.”); Steiner Transocean Ltd. v. Efremova, 109 So. 3d 871, 873 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2013) (“[A] court is permitted to consider evidence outside the four

corners of the complaint where the motion to dismiss challenges subject

matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction, or where the motion to dismiss is

based upon forum non conveniens or improper venue.”) (footnotes omitted);

Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 568 (Fla. 2005) (“Florida courts,

including this Court, have held that the issue of federal preemption is a

question of subject matter jurisdiction.”); Hernandez v. Coopervision, Inc.,

661 So. 2d 33, 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (stating “the issue of federal

preemption is a question of subject matter jurisdiction”); Doe v. Kik

                                      2
Interactive, Inc., 482 F. Supp. 3d 1242, 1252 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (“Futility

justifies the denial of leave to amend where the complaint, as amended,

would still be subject to dismissal.” (citing Burger King Corp. v. Weaver, 169

F.3d 1310, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999))); Am. Online, Inc., 783 So. 2d at 1013

(“[We] find that section 230 does preempt Florida law as to such a cause of

action based upon alleged negligence.”) (emphasis added); Medytox, 152

So. 3d at 730 (“[T]he Florida Supreme Court held that section 230 preempts

Florida law as to causes of action based in negligence against an Internet

Service Provider as a distributor of information.”) (emphasis added).

                                      3