Rep. Tim Burchett is seeking to dismiss a Kansas man’s defamation lawsuit stemming from a February shooting in Kansas City following the Chief’s Super Bowl victory.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court in Kansas in March by Denton Loudermill, Jr., says Burchett shared photos of Loudermill on X, formerly known as Twitter, claiming he was one of the shooters and an “illegal alien.”https://ac272b4b427473590770feaa4499aa68.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html
The lawsuit says Loudermill attended the parade and was told by police in the moments after the shooting he was moving “too slow” when he tried to go under police tape to leave the area.
He was then handcuffed and sat on a curb for about 10 minutes before being unhandcuffed and told by police he was “free to go,” the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit further says Burchett removed the post referring to Loudermill as an “illegal alien,” but he made another post with the image that misidentified him as “one of the shooters.”
The lawsuit also says Loudermill has received death threats and suffered mental distress from being falsely identified as an “illegal alien” and “shooter.” https://ac272b4b427473590770feaa4499aa68.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html
Burchett has now submitted a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the federal court in Kansas does not have jurisdiction.
In the motion, it is argued that Burchett didn’t know Loudermill or that he was a resident of the State of Kansas.
“Mr. Burchett’s reposting of an image of [Loudermill] already seen by millions of people did not place [Loudermill] in a false light and certainly does not establish jurisdiction. Neither Mr. Burchett’s February 15th post nor his retraction made on the 19th of February were directed at the State of Kansas in any way. Further, those posts were not intended or expected to cause injury in Kansas,” the motion says.
The motion continues by saying Burchett “did not engage in any intentional act which was ‘expressly aimed’ at the State of Kansas with ‘knowledge that the brunt of the injury would be felt there.”
According to the motion, the venue is not appropriate in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas because it occurred outside of the state.
Loudermill is asking for $75,000 in damages for acts considered “willful, wanton, reckless and malicious,” according to the lawsuit.
Below is the full motion:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THEDISTRICT OF KANSAS
DENTON E. LOUDERMILL, JR.,
Plaintiff
, v. TIMOTHY F. BURCHETT,
Defendant
.Case No. 2:24-cv-02109-JWB-ADM
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OFPERSONAL JURISDICTION AND IMPROPER VENUE
Defendant Timothy F. Burchett, by and through counsel, pursuant F.R.C.P. 12(b)(2) and12(b)(3), hereby submits his Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue and states the following:1. Plaintiff Denton Loudermill was in attendance at the Kansas City Chiefs’Superbowl Victory Parade, when a mass shooting took place, injuring more than twenty childrenand adults and causing the death of a well-known local radio host, resulting in both chaos and amedia frenzy as the nation focused its attention on this emergent matter of public concern. Compl. ¶ 2. Kansas City, Missouri Police Officers ran to the area and began clearing people from the crimescene, taping the area off. Compl. ¶ 14. Plaintiff found himself in close proximity to where theshooting occurred. Compl. ¶¶ 11-13. While there, Plaintiff admittedly interacted with lawenforcement officers. That interaction resulted in Plaintiff being detained and placed in handcuffs, where he was seated on a curb for roughly ten minutes as he remained in police custody. Compl. ¶¶ 15-16. Unfortunately for Plaintiff, onlookers and media outlets began taking pictures and videorecordings of Plaintiff, which images immediately went viral showing up on social media platforms
Case 2:24-cv-02109-JWB-BGS Document 5 Filed 05/01/24 Page 1 of 4
as well as most, if not all, major news media outlets
1
, as news coverage linked Plaintiff to theshooting. Compl. ¶ 17;
see also
FN 1
.
2. Despite the fact the images and recordings of Plaintiff handcuffed in police custodyhad already been shared across the nation and even internationally, Plaintiff brings a single claimagainst Mr. Burchett, alleging Mr. Burchett placed Plaintiff in a false light when the next day herecirculated Plaintiff’s photograph, making a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, about theshooting. Compl. ¶ 20.3. At the time Mr. Burchett made the February 15, 2024 post, he was located in theDistrict of Columbia. The repost was intended to target a nationwide audience regarding the issueof illegal immigration and violence plaguing our nation’s communities. Moreover, Mr. Burchettdid not know the name of the individual photographed, now identified as Plaintiff DentonLoudermill. He also did not know that the individual was a resident of the State of Kansas.4. Mr. Burchett’s reposting of an image of Plaintiff already seen by millions of peopledid not place Plaintiff in a false light and certainly does not establish jurisdiction. Neither Mr.Burchett’s February 15
th
post nor his retraction made on the 19
th
of February were directed at theState of Kansas in any way. Further, those posts were not intended or expected to cause injury inKansas.5. Mr. Burchett simply did not engage in any intentional act which was “expresslyaimed” at the State of Kansas with “knowledge that the brunt of the injury would be felt” there.
1
See, e.g.,
ABC News:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1FBE4bFchQ(1:00); NBC News:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omEdiZyiDTQ(0:14; 0:32); CBS News:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4skCLNKcN-k(7:21;14:36) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7JaOThop0(12:25); MSNBC News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UwR1DzpXjM(8:44); Inside Edition:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbsQQqIGsCA(0:29) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkReHxJiC70; (0:45); BBC News:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlFploRR_A4(1:44); and The Guardian:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6CKpitq_qE(1:21).
Case 2:24-cv-02109-JWB-BGS Document 5 Filed 05/01/24 Page 2 of 4
6. For these reasons, this Court lacks specific personal jurisdiction over Mr. Burchettbecause: he did not “purposefully direct” his activities at the State of Kansas; and because Plaintiffhas failed to show Plaintiff’s alleged injuries “arise out of” Mr. Burchett’s forum-related activities.7. Furthermore, this Court does not have general personal jurisdiction over Mr.Burchett because he is a resident and citizen of the State of Tennessee, and he has no contacts with the State of Kansas.8. Finally, because the events which allegedly gave rise to Plaintiff’s claim (theposting of the alleged inflammatory material) occurred outside the State of Kansas, venue is notappropriate in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2).In support of his Motion, Mr. Burchett is concurrently filing a memorandum of law settingforth the grounds for his Motion. WHEREFORE, Defendant Timothy F. Burchett respectfully requests that this Courtgrant his Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue, dismissingPlaintiff’s lawsuit in its entirety, as well as such other and further relief as this Court deems justand proper.Respectfully submitted,
BAKER, STERCHI, COWDEN & RICE, LLC
/s/
James
S.
Kreamer
James Scott Kreamer #14374 Jacqueline M. Longfellow #198782400 Pershing Road, Suite 500Kansas City, Missouri 64108Phone: (816) 471-2121; Facsimile: (816) 472-0288Email: kreamer@bakersterchi.com Email: jlongfellow@bakersterchi.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
Case 2:24-cv-02109-JWB-BGS Document 5 Filed 05/01/24 Page 3 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was filed with theClerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system on this 1
st
day of May 2024, which will send accessto a service copy to all counsel of record.
/s/ James S. Kreamer
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
