Tiffany Wells v. Lizzo

Case 2:19-cv-09808 Document 1 Filed 11/15/19 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:1
1
Robert V. Prongay (#270796)
(rprongay@glancylaw.com)
2 (info@glancylaw.com)
3
Natalie S. Pang (#305886)
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
4 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
5 Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
6
7 Michael A. Rose
(MR@hachroselaw.com)
8 Kathryn A. Hettler
9 (KH@hrsclaw.com)
HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA &
10 CHEVERIE LLP
11 112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor

New York, New York 10016
12 Telephone: (212) 213-8311
13
Larry Nussbaum
14 (larry@nlginjury.com)
15 NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP P.C.

76 Canal Street, 4th Floor
16 Boston, Massachusetts 02114
17 Telephone: (857) 245-9853
18 Counsel for Plaintiff
19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
20
21 TIFFANY WELLS, Case No.:
22 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR:

23 v. 1) Libel;
2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional
24 MELISSA V. JEFFERSON, Distress; and
25 3) False Light Invasion of Privacy
Defendant.
26 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
27
28
1 Plaintiff Tiffany Wells (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Wells”), by and through her

2 undersigned attorneys, complaining of Defendant Melissa V. Jefferson a/k/a Lizzo
3 (“Defendant” or “Lizzo”), brings this action for libel, intentional infliction of
4 emotional distress, and false light invasion of privacy. Upon information and belief,
5 Plaintiff hereby alleges as follows:
6 I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7 1. This Court has diversity question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332
8 because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, and Plaintiff
9 and Defendant are residents of different states.
10 2. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because

11 Defendant resides in this judicial district.
12 II. PARTIES
13 Plaintiff
14 3. Plaintiff Tiffany Wells is a 27-year-old female. Ms. Wells began
15 working as courier for Postmates in approximately March 2019. Following the
16 events described herein, Ms. Wells ceased working for Postmates on or about
17 September 17, 2019. During all relevant times hereinafter mentioned, Ms. Wells
18 was and still is a resident of the State of Massachusetts, County of Suffolk.
19 Defendant
20 4. Defendant Melissa V. Jefferson, known professionally as “Lizzo,” is an
21 American singer, songwriter, rapper, and actress. In 2019, Lizzo attained
22 mainstream success with the release of her third studio album. To date, Lizzo has
23 over one million followers on Twitter and approximately 5.5 million followers on
24 Instagram. Lizzo is a resident of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
25 III. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS

26 Plaintiff’s Background
27 5. Upon graduating high school, Ms. Wells immediately joined the work
28 force. From age eighteen until present day, Ms. Wells has held various customer
1
1 service-related jobs. Indeed, Ms. Wells is a very perseverant and hard-working

2 individual, at times, working three different jobs at once. Throughout her
3 employment, Ms. Wells received various recognitions, including an award for
4 quality of service.
5 6. With regards to her employment, Ms. Wells amicably left each position
6 she held. Either Ms. Wells left to seek a better opportunity, or her position was
7 eliminated altogether. In fact, Ms. Wells began working as courier for Postmates in
8 approximately March 2019 after she was laid off from her previous job. Following
9 the events described herein, Ms. Wells ceased working for Postmates on or about
10 September 17, 2019.
11 What is Postmates?
12 7. Postmates is an American logistics company that works by connecting
13 customers with couriers (i.e. a Postmate) who make deliveries for a huge variety of
14 local businesses. Using the Postmates application (“app”), one can place an order
15 for items ranging from food, alcohol, groceries, and more. A Postmate receives an
16 order notification on their mobile device, then picks up the order and delivers it
17 directly to the customer within minutes.
18 8. When the Postmate arrives at the delivery address, the customer

1
19 receives a notification of their arrival in their Postmates app and a push notification
20 is sent to the customer’s device. According to Postmates’ policies, if a Postmate is
21 unable to locate the customer, or is having difficulties entering the customer’s
22 building, the Postmate will call or text the customer at the number the customer
2
23 provided at checkout. A Postmate will wait at the delivery address and attempt to
24
1
25
A push notification is an automated message sent by an application to a user when
the application is not open.
26 2
Postmates. What should I do if I missed my delivery?
27 https://support.postmates.com/buyer/articles/115002481648-article-What-should-I-
do-if-I-missed-my-delivery- (last accessed September 27, 2019).
28
2
3
1 get ahold of the customer for of five minutes. If the Postmate is unable to get in
2 touch with the customer after five minutes, the Postmate is to leave the location and
4
3 move on to their next delivery.
4 9. A Postmate is paid for each completed pickup and delivery. In

5 addition, a Postmate receives compensation for each minute spent waiting in stores,
6 as well as for the distance he or she has to travel between the pickup and drop-off
7 locations. A Postmate also retains 100% of any customer tips received.
8 Plaintiff’s Work as a Postmate and the September 16, 2019 Postmates

9 Delivery
10 10. As mentioned above, Plaintiff began working as a courier for Postmates
5
11 in approximately March 2019. From the time that Plaintiff began working as a
12 Postmate until the time she was forced to quit, Plaintiff made approximately 450
13 deliveries for Postmates.
14 11. On or about September 16, 2019, at approximately 7:14 p.m. Plaintiff

15 received a delivery notification on her cellphone. The notification indicated that a
16 food order was to be picked up from Luke’s Lobster and delivered to a Bonnie V. at
17 200 Stuart Street in Boston, Massachusetts, which happens to be the location of the
18 Revere Hotel.
19 12. Plaintiff proceeded to the Luke’s Lobster to pick up the order and
20 promptly headed to 200 Stuart Street to complete the delivery.
21 13. When Plaintiff arrived at 200 Stuart Street (i.e. the Revere Hotel), she
22 was unable to locate the customer. Although the customer had ordered delivery to
23 the Revere Hotel, the customer did not provide a hotel room number.
24
25 3
Id.
4
26 Id.
5
27 At or about this time, Plaintiff also began working as a courier for other food
delivery services, including Uber EATS and Caviar.
28
3
1 14. After canvassing the entrance to the hotel and the hotel lobby, Plaintiff,
2 per Postmates policy, attempted to contact the customer via telephone. Indeed,
3 Plaintiff made multiple calls to the phone number that the customer provided to
4 Postmates, yet each call went unanswered.
5 15. In a further attempt to contact the customer and complete the delivery,
6 Plaintiff spoke with the hotel’s front desk agents. She inquired if anyone with the
7 customer’s name was staying at the hotel. After she was informed that there was in
8 fact no Bonnie V. staying at the hotel, Plaintiff went back outside where she lingered
9 for five minutes before finally departing – as per Postmates policy.
10 16. In fact, from the time Plaintiff arrived at 200 Stuart Street from the
11 time she departed, Plaintiff spent more than ten minutes trying to contact the
12 customer. Indeed, Plaintiff went above and beyond Postmates’ requisite five-minute
13 waiting period policy.
14 The Aftermath of the September 16, 2019 Postmates Delivery

15 17. The next day, September 17, 2019, Plaintiff was barraged with text
16 messages and phone calls from friends and family members informing her that
17 Lizzo had posted Plaintiff’s name and photograph on Twitter, stating “Hey
18 @Postmates this girl Tiffany W. stole my food she lucky I don’t fight no more.” A
6
19 copy of Lizzo’s original tweet is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
20 18. Plaintiff instantly put two and two together and realized that Lizzo must
21 have been the customer that she was unable to deliver the food to the night before
22 (i.e. Bonnie V.).
23 19. Plaintiff immediately logged in to her own Twitter account to confirm

24 what her family and friends had been telling her. As a relatively private person,
25 Plaintiff was shocked to find out that Lizzo had plastered her face on the Internet for
26
6
27 Upon information and belief, Lizzo’s original September 16, 2019 tweet is posted
in Pacific Standard Time (“PST”).
28
4
1 all to see. Plaintiff was even more shocked to find out that her picture was
2 accompanied by text accusing her of being a thief.
3 20. Plaintiff continued to search Twitter and the Internet. She discovered
4 that Lizzo’s tweet had been replied to by a plethora of individuals, including some
5 of Lizzo’s purported loyal fans who threatened Plaintiff with acts of violence. One
6 particular individual replied to Lizzo’s tweet with the following, “[m]e pulling up to
7 Tiffany’s house and stomping on her ass bc she deprived my baby lizzo of her
8 food,” yet another individual replied, “catch me in the streets tIFFANY.” The
9 threatening tweets are attached hereto as Exhibit B.
10 21. Plaintiff also discovered that Lizzo had replied to a comment to her
11 original tweet. Lizzo’s reply stated, “[n]aw the front desk told me she walked in,
12 clocked it as delivered, then walked out with food in hand. Her phone never rang,
13 Postmates couldn’t contact her either. She clearly knew what she was doing and I
14 just don’t want someone else to get they shit stole too….” Lizzo’s reply tweet is
15 attached hereto as Exhibit C.
16 22. Because of Lizzo’s tweets and in light of Lizzo’s influence and

17 popularity, Plaintiff became fearful that someone may recognize her if she continued
18 to deliver for Postmates. Given that Plaintiff was already the recipient of direct
19 threats of violence, Plaintiff also feared for her physical safety. Unsure as to what
20 an individual or group of individuals may do to cause her harm if she were to be
21 recognized in public, Plaintiff was scared to leave her house and as a result was
22 forced to stop delivering as a courier altogether – directly affecting her ability to

7
23 earn a living.
24 23. Although Lizzo’s tweet was eventually removed from Twitter and
25 Lizzo tweeted out an apology to Plaintiff, attached hereto as Exhibit D, as various
26
27
7
In addition to Postmates, Plaintiff ceased working for Uber Eats and Caviar.
28
5
1 media outlets pointed out, the damage had already been done. Lizzo’s tweet had
2 been retweeted, replied to, and highly circulated by various mainstream media
3 organizations, including but not limited to People, Rolling Stone and TMZ. To date,
4 the TMZ article alone has 777 comments and has been shared 5,600 times on
8
5 Facebook.
6 24. Moreover, as confirmed by TMZ, who reached out to Postmates for

7 comment with regards to Lizzo’s tweet, Postmates denied any wrongdoing by
8 Plaintiff. A Postmates spokesperson informed TMZ that “[a]s soon as Lizzo

9
9 reached out, we looked into the matter and quickly resolved the issue.” TMZ was
10 further told that “the company determined [Plaintiff] waited at least the required 5
11 minutes and wasn’t able to reach the customer, so she moved on like she’s supposed
10
12 to do.”
13 25. Notably, in her apology, Lizzo admitted to “putting [Plaintiff] on

11
14 blast,” and that by doing so, Lizzo “put [Plaintiff] in danger.” See Exhibit D.
15 IV. CAUSES OF ACTION
16 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
17 LIBEL
18 26. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges by reference each and every allegation
19 contained in the above stated paragraphs, and incorporate the same herein as though
20 fully set forth.
21
22 8
TMZ, Lizzo’s Postmates Driver Says She’s Not a Food Thief and Now She’s
23 Terrified, https://www.tmz.com/2019/09/23/lizzo-postmates-driver-humiliated-
scared-thief-defamation/ (last accessed September 27, 2019).
24 9
Id.
25 10
Id.
26 11
According to various Internet sources, “putting someone on
27 blast” means putting them in a situation that is either embarrassing or compromises
their reputation.
28
6
1 27. As reference above, and as attached hereto as Exhibits A and C, on or

2 about September 16, 2019, Lizzo made and published to third-parties via Twitter the
3 following false statements of or concerning Plaintiff:
4 a. “Hey @Postmates this girl Tiffany W. stole my food she lucky I

5 don’t fight no more,” and
6 b. “Naw the front desk told me she walked in, clocked it as delivered,
7 then walked out with food in hand. Her phone never rang,
8 Postmates couldn’t contact her either. She clearly knew what she
9 was doing and I just don’t want someone else to get they shit stole
10 too….”
11 28. The above false statements are defamatory and are libelous on their
12 face as they adversely affect Plaintiff’s reputation, expose Plaintiff to hatred,
13 contempt, ridicule and obloquy, and have a tendency to injure Plaintiff in her
14 occupation.
15 29. Lizzo’s publication of the false statements of or concerning Plaintiff to

16 third-parties included, but was not limited to Lizzo’s roughly one million Twitter
17 followers.
18 30. By tweeting false statements about Plaintiff, Lizzo knew or should have
19 known that her false and defamatory statements would be republished over and over
20 by third-parties. Indeed, Lizzo’s tweet was picked up and republished by various
21 main stream media organizations, including but not limited to People, Rolling Stone
22 and TMZ.
23 31. Lizzo lacked reasonable grounds for any belief in the truth of her
24 statements and acted negligently in failing to determine the true facts because Lizzo
25 tweeted the false statement of or concerning Plaintiff prior to or without first
26 contacting Postmates in order to inquire as to the status of her delivery.
27 32. Lizzo acted with actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth when
28 she tweeted the false statements of or concerning Plaintiff because Plaintiff made
7
1 multiple, albeit unsuccessful, phone calls to the phone number associated with
2 Lizzo’s Postmates order. Moreover, Lizzo received a notification of Plaintiff’s

3 arrival in her Postmates app and a push notification was sent to Lizzo’s mobile
4 device.
5 33. Lizzo’s false statements constitute libel per se, as the statements accuse
6 Plaintiff of the commission of a crime involving moral turpitude (i.e. theft). Lizzo’s
7 false statements also impute to Plaintiff an unfitness to perform the duties associated
8 with being a courier. Thus, Lizzo’s false statements of or concerning Plaintiff also
9 prejudice Plaintiff in her profession or trade.
10 34. As a direct result of Lizzo’s actions, Plaintiff has suffered and

11 continues to suffer substantial damage and loss, including, but not limited to, the
12 loss future earnings, pain and suffering, emotional distress and trauma, fear of
13 physical safety, insult, anguish, stress and anxiety, public ridicule, humiliation,
14 indignity, damage and injury to her personal and professional reputation, and other
15 incidental and consequential damages and expenses.
16 35. As a result of Lizzo’s conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory

17 damages, punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and
18 costs, and such other legal and equitable relief as this Court deems just and proper.
19 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

20 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
23 fully set forth.
24 37. By tweeting Plaintiff’s image, along with the defamatory statements

25 and threatening comments of or concerning Plaintiff, Lizzo intended to inflict or
26 recklessly disregarded for the probability of inflicting, emotional distress upon
27 Plaintiff.
28
8
1 38. Lizzo’s conduct was extreme and outrageous in that she used her
2 celebrity to publicly defame, disparage and threaten a private individual (i.e.
3 Plaintiff), to roughly one million Twitter followers.
4 39. Lizzo’s conduct was also extreme and outrageous in that she lacked
5 reasonable grounds for any belief in the truth of her statements and acted negligently
6 in failing to determine the true facts because Lizzo tweeted the false statement of or
7 concerning Plaintiff prior to or without first contacting Postmates in order to inquire
8 as to the status of her delivery.

14 device.
15 41. As result of Lizzo’s extreme and outrageous conduct, Plaintiff suffered

16 severe anxiety and emotional distress. Plaintiff, due to direct threats on her personal
17 safety, was afraid for her well-being. Plaintiff was scared to leave her house and as
18 a result, Plaintiff was forced to stop delivering as a courier altogether – directly
19 affecting her ability to earn a living.
20 42. Lizzo’s actions offend against generally accepted standards of decency

21 tolerated in a civil society. Any reasonable person directly threatened on a global
22 platform by a celebrity and her avid followers would have suffered emotional
23 distress and would have similarly reacted.

28
9

6 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

7 FALSE LIGHT INVASION OF PRIVACY
10 fully set forth.
11 46. Lizzo, without Plaintiff’s consent, publicly disclosed Plaintiff’s image,

12 along with false statements accusing Plaintiff of being a thief, to her roughly one
13 million Twitter followers.
14 47. Lizzo published these statements with knowledge that they were false
15 or with reckless disregard for their falsity.
16 48. Indeed, Lizzo lacked reasonable grounds for any belief in the truth of
17 her statements and acted negligently in failing to determine the true facts because
18 Lizzo tweeted the false statement of or concerning Plaintiff prior to or without first
19 contacting Postmates in order to inquire as to the status of her delivery.

25 device.
26 50. By publishing the false statements, Lizzo unreasonable, substantially

27 and seriously interfered with Plaintiff’s right to privacy, as such statements placed
28 Plaintiff in a false light.
10
1 51. The false light in which Plaintiff was painted is highly offensive and
2 objectional to both Plaintiff and to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.


12 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

13 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the
14 following relief: compensatory damages, punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment
15 interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and such other legal and equitable relief as this
16 Court deems just and proper.
17 JURY DEMAND
18 Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all of the triable issues of fact and
19 damages stated herein.
20 Dated: November 15, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

21
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
22
23
By: s/ Robert V. Prongay
Robert V. Prongay
24 Natalie S. Pang
25 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90067
26 Telephone: (310) 201-9150
27 Email: info@glancylaw.com
28
11
1
Michael A. Rose
(MR@hachroselaw.com)
2 Kathryn A. Hettler
3
(KH@hrsclaw.com)
HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA &
4 CHEVERIE LLP
5 112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, New York 10016
6 Telephone: (212) 213-8311
7
Larry Nussbaum
8 (larry@nlginjury.com)
9 NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP P.C.
76 Canal Street, 4th Floor
10 Boston, Massachusetts 02114
11 Telephone: (857) 245-9853
12 Counsel for Plaintiff

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12

Tiffany Wells v. Lizzo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Description:

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tiffany Wells v. Lizzo

Uploaded by

Description:

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:19-cv-09808 Document 1 Filed 11/15/19 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:1

11 112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor

15 NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP P.C.

17 Telephone: (857) 245-9853

18 Counsel for Plaintiff

19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21 TIFFANY WELLS, Case No.:

22 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR:

1 Plaintiff Tiffany Wells (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Wells”), by and through her

3 (“Defendant” or “Lizzo”), brings this action for libel, intentional infliction of

5 Plaintiff hereby alleges as follows:

6 I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9 and Defendant are residents of different states.

10 2. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because

18 was and still is a resident of the State of Massachusetts, County of Suffolk.

24 Instagram. Lizzo is a resident of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

25 III. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS

1 service-related jobs. Indeed, Ms. Wells is a very perseverant and hard-working

10 September 17, 2019.

17 directly to the customer within minutes.

18 8. When the Postmate arrives at the delivery address, the customer

20 is sent to the customer’s device. According to Postmates’ policies, if a Postmate is

21 unable to locate the customer, or is having difficulties entering the customer’s

4 9. A Postmate is paid for each completed pickup and delivery. In

7 locations. A Postmate also retains 100% of any customer tips received.

8 Plaintiff’s Work as a Postmate and the September 16, 2019 Postmates

13 deliveries for Postmates.

14 11. On or about September 16, 2019, at approximately 7:14 p.m. Plaintiff

4 Postmates, yet each call went unanswered.

9 for five minutes before finally departing – as per Postmates policy.

13 waiting period policy.

14 The Aftermath of the September 16, 2019 Postmates Delivery

22 (i.e. Bonnie V.).

23 19. Plaintiff immediately logged in to her own Twitter account to confirm

9 threatening tweets are attached hereto as Exhibit B.

15 attached hereto as Exhibit C.

16 22. Because of Lizzo’s tweets and in light of Lizzo’s influence and

20 an individual or group of individuals may do to cause her harm if she were to be

22 forced to stop delivering as a courier altogether – directly affecting her ability to

6 24. Moreover, as confirmed by TMZ, who reached out to Postmates for

8 Plaintiff. A Postmates spokesperson informed TMZ that “[a]s soon as Lizzo

13 25. Notably, in her apology, Lizzo admitted to “putting [Plaintiff] on

20 fully set forth.

1 27. As reference above, and as attached hereto as Exhibits A and C, on or

3 following false statements of or concerning Plaintiff:

4 a. “Hey @Postmates this girl Tiffany W. stole my food she lucky I

15 29. Lizzo’s publication of the false statements of or concerning Plaintiff to

20 by third-parties. Indeed, Lizzo’s tweet was picked up and republished by various

25 tweeted the false statement of or concerning Plaintiff prior to or without first

26 contacting Postmates in order to inquire as to the status of her delivery.

2 Lizzo’s Postmates order. Moreover, Lizzo received a notification of Plaintiff’s

9 prejudice Plaintiff in her profession or trade.

10 34. As a direct result of Lizzo’s actions, Plaintiff has suffered and

15 incidental and consequential damages and expenses.

16 35. As a result of Lizzo’s conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory

19 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

23 fully set forth.

24 37. By tweeting Plaintiff’s image, along with the defamatory statements

26 recklessly disregarded for the probability of inflicting, emotional distress upon

3 Plaintiff), to roughly one million Twitter followers.

7 concerning Plaintiff prior to or without first contacting Postmates in order to inquire