White

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

AARON DEMARCUS WHITE, }

}

Plaintiff, }

}

v. } Case No. 2:25-cv-1679-ACA

}

GOOGLE, et al., }

}

Defendants. }

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Aaron Demarcus White filed a pro se complaint against Defendants

Walmart, Google, and Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner. (Doc. 1). He asserts state

law claims for slander and libel because each defendant uses the word

“Englishman.” (Id. at 5). All defendants move to dismiss. For the reasons stated

below, the court WILL GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART the motions. The

court WILL GRANT the defendants’ motions and DISMISS all claims against

them for failure to state a claim. (Docs. 12, 15, & 19). The court WILL DENY

Google’s and Mr. Sumner’s motion to the extent they seek dismissal for lack of

jurisdiction. The court WILL DENY Mr. White’s motion for default judgment (doc.

24) and FINDS AS MOOT his motion to not dismiss (doc. 26).

I. BACKGROUND

At this stage, the court must accept as true the factual allegations in the

complaint and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Butler v.

Sheriff of Palm Beach Cnty., 685 F.3d 1261, 1265 (11th Cir. 2012).

Mr. White alleges he is the only true “Englishman” because he is the only

person that truly knows English. (Doc. 1 at 5). Accordingly, no other person or entity

may use the word “Englishman.” (Id.). Walmart uses the word “Englishman” online

because the word is in the title of several products that it sells. (Doc. 1-3 at 9). Google

search results also contain the word. (Id. at 10, 13–14). And Mr. Sumner’s song,

“Englishman in New York,” repeats the word several times. (Id. at 10–11).

Mr. Sumner performed this song in Alabama at Oak Mountain Theater on August

29, 2000. (Id. at 18–19, 22).

I. DISCUSSION

All three defendants move to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). But Google and Mr. Sumner also challenge the court’s

jurisdiction. (Doc. 15 at 7–8; doc. 19 ¶¶ 2, 3–7). “[A] federal court generally may

not rule on the merits of a case without first determining that it has jurisdiction over

the category of claim in suit (subject-matter jurisdiction) and the parties (personal

jurisdiction).” Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422,

430–31 (2007). Accordingly, the court addresses the parties’ jurisdictional arguments

first.

1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Google and Mr. Sumner argue that the court should dismiss the complaint

under Rule 12(b)(1) because the claims are frivolous, thus depriving the court of

subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 15 at 7–8; doc. 19 ¶ 2). But the line of cases that

Google and Mr. Sumner rely on apply when a court’s jurisdiction relies on federal

question jurisdiction. See, e.g., Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37 (1974).

Mr. White invokes this court’s diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1 at 3). A federal

court has diversity jurisdiction when the parties are completely diverse and the

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Mr. White is a resident

of Alabama. (Id. at 1). No other defendant is an Alabama resident. (Id. at 2, 4; doc.

1-2; see also doc. 16; doc. 20; doc. 22). Mr. White seeks more than $75,000 in

damages. (Doc. 1 at 4). Accordingly, this court has subject matter jurisdiction and

will not grant the motions to dismiss on that ground.

2. Personal Jurisdiction

Mr. Sumner contends that the court does not have personal jurisdiction over

him. (Doc. 19 ¶¶ 3–7). Personal jurisdiction involves a two-step analysis: “the

exercise of jurisdiction must (1) be appropriate under the state long-arm statute and

(2) not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

States Constitution.” United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260, 1274 (11th Cir.

2009). In Alabama, “the two inquiries merge, because Alabama’s long-arm statute

permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction to the fullest extent constitutionally

permissible.” Sloss Indus. Corp. v. Eurisol, 488 F.3d 922, 925 (11th Cir. 2007). A

court must have either general or personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

The court does not have general personal jurisdiction over Mr. Sumner. A

court has general jurisdiction when the defendant is domiciled in the forum state.

Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 137 (2014). As Mr. Sumner points out in his

affidavit, he is not a resident of Alabama and does not own property in Alabama.

(Doc. 19-1 ¶¶ 3–4). Thus, the court does not have general jurisdiction.

But the court has specific personal jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction arises

“out of a party’s activities in the forum state that are related to the cause of action

alleged in the complaint.” Sloss Indus. Corp., 488 F.3d at 925 (quotation marks

omitted). A state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who commits

a tort in the state. Lamb v. Turbine Designs, Inc., 207 F.3d 1259, 1260–61 (11th Cir.

2000). Here, Mr. White alleges that Mr. Sumner committed a tort when he performed

a song in the state. (Doc. 1-3 at 18–19, 22). Although Mr. Sumner contends the

allegations cannot state a claim, his motion does not address or dispute this allegation

with regards to personal jurisdiction. (See doc. 19 at 2–4). Instead, Mr. Sumner

argues that his song was not directed at the state of Alabama and relies on the Calder

effects test. See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789–90 (1984). But that test applies

when the alleged intentional tort occurred outside of the state. See Moore v. Cecil,

109 F.4th 1352, 1363–64 (11th Cir. 2024). Because Mr. White alleges Mr. Sumner

committed an intentional tort while in Alabama, this court has specific personal

jurisdiction.

3. Failure to State a Claim

Walmart, Google, and Mr. Sumner move to dismiss Mr. White’s complaint

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because it fails to state a claim for

relief. (Doc. 12; doc. 15 at 8–9; doc. 19 ¶ 1).1 “To survive a motion to dismiss, the

plaintiff must plead ‘a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Butler, 685 F.3d

at 1265 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

Mr. White asserts claims for slander and libel. To state a claim, he must show

four things: (1) the defendant made a false and defamatory statement; (2) “an

unprivileged communication of that statement to a third party”; (3) “fault amounting

at least to negligence”; and (4) “either actionability of the statement irrespective of

1 Because the court agrees Mr. White’s complaint does not state a claim, the court does not

address Google’s res judicata argument.

special harm or the existence of special harm caused by the publication of the

statement.” Dolgencorp, LLC v. Spence, 224 So. 3d 173, 186 (Ala. 2016) (quotation

marks omitted). Mr. White alleges that he is the “only true Englishman,” so no one

else may use the word without “slandering” and “libeling” his name. (Doc. 1 at 5).

But Mr. White’s allegations do not state a claim. His complaint alleges facts divorced

from any cause of action, including slander or libel. (See generally id.). Other

allegations are conclusory. (Id.). The court therefore WILL GRANT the motions

and DISMISS Mr. White’s claims WITH PREJUDICE because any amendment

would be futile.

4. Mr. White’s Motion for Default Judgment

Mr. White moves for default judgment against Walmart because he contends

Walmart did not respond to the lawsuit. (Doc. 24). But Walmart appeared and filed

a motion to dismiss. (See doc. 12). Mr. White later conceded that default judgment

is not appropriate. (Doc. 26). Accordingly, the court WILL DENY Mr. White’s

motion for default judgment. (Doc. 24).

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the court WILL GRANT the defendants’

motions and DISMISS all claims against them WITH PREJUDICE for failure to

state a claim. (Docs. 12, 15, & 19). The court WILL DENY Google’s and

Mr. Sumner’s motion to the extent they seek dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The

court WILL DENY Mr. White’s motion for default judgment (doc. 24) and FINDS

AS MOOT his motion to not dismiss (doc. 26).

DONE and ORDERED this January 5, 2026.

ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE