Oswald v. Buffalo Bills et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-CV-60990-VALLE
TIMOTHY OSWALD,
Plaintiff,
v.
BUFFALO BILLS and
NATIONAL FOOTBALL
LEAGUE,
Defendants.
/
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint and Buffalo Bills, LLC’s Alternative Motion to Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 8)
(the “Motion”). 	Plaintiff Timothy Oswald is proceeding without counsel (i.e., pro se).
Pursuant to Administrative Order 2025-11, the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge
has been randomly assigned as the presiding Judge for all purposes in this case, including
entering a dispositive order, presiding over any trial, and entering a final judgment. See (ECF
No. 2).
After due consideration of the Motion, Plaintiff’s Response (ECF No. 27), Defendants’
Reply (ECF No. 29), and being otherwise fully advised on the matter, the Motion is
GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons set forth below.
Case 0:25-cv-60990-AOV Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2026 Page 1 of 11

2
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Timothy Oswald (“Plaintiff”) filed Complaint against Defendants the Buffalo
Bills (the “Bills”) 1 and the National Football League (the “NFL”) (together, “Defendants”),
alleging jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. (ECF No. 1-1 at 1). Plaintiff alleges that
he is a citizen of Florida, and Defendants are incorporated/have a principal place of business in
another state. Id. Liberally construed, Plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully denied the ability
to purchase season tickets for the upcoming NFL season. 	(ECF No. 1 ¶ 3). 	Plaintiff demands
$37 million in damages. (ECF No. 1-1 at 1). The instant Motion followed.
In seeking to dismiss the Complaint, Defendants argue that: (i) although the NFL is named
as a Defendant, the Complaint lacks allegations against it; (ii) this Court lacks personal jurisdiction
over the Bills; (iii) any claims against the Bills would be subject to arbitration; and (iv) Plaintiff
fails to allege any viable claims for relief. See generally (ECF No. 8).
Plaintiff opposes the Motion, arguing that the Court has general jurisdiction under Florida’s
long arm statute. (ECF No. 27 at 3). Plaintiff also includes a recitation of alleged facts that go
beyond the issue before the Court and lists several cases in support of a purported challenge to the
Season Ticket Membership Agreement. (ECF No. 27-1 at 6-8). Lastly, Plaintiff asserts several
arguments that the undersigned need not address because the case must be dismissed for lack of
personal jurisdiction.
1 Defendants assert the proper entity is Buffalo Bills, LLC. (ECF No. 8 at 1 n.1).
Case 0:25-cv-60990-AOV Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2026 Page 2 of 11

3
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff Fails to Allege a Claim Against the NFL
A pro se litigant’s pleadings must be construed more liberally than pleadings drafted by
attorneys. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); see also Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d
1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008) (“pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those
pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed”) (citation omitted).
Nevertheless, “this leniency does not give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party .
. . or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” GJR Invs., Inc. v.
County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).
Here, although the Complaint identifies the NFL as a Defendant, it does not contain any
allegations against the NFL. See generally (ECF No. 1) (identifying only the Bills as involved in
the purported claims). In opposing the Motion, Plaintiff argues that the Bills and the NFL have
the same counsel, reflecting that “[Defendant’s] motivations and objectives align.” (ECF No. 27-
1 at 14). 	Plaintiff then discusses the alleged role of the NFL Commissioner and certain of the
NFL’s policies. Id. at 14-19. Plaintiff’s arguments, however, do not cure the omission of claims
against the NFL. Moreover, Plaintiff may not amend his Complaint through a response to a motion
to dismiss. Watkins v. Six Unknown Broward Sherriff Jail Deputies, No. 14-CV-62095, 2015 WL
13203924, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2015) (citation omitted). 	Accordingly, the purported claims
against the NFL are dismissed for failure to state a claim.
B. Plaintiff’s Claims Against the Bills Fail for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
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
Case 0:25-cv-60990-AOV Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2026 Page 3 of 11

4
(personal jurisdiction).” Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-
31 (2007); see also Steel Co. v. Citizens for A Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 93-102 (1998). Accepting,
as alleged, that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, the
undersigned must next consider whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants.
1. 	Plaintiff Failed to Plead or Rebut Evidence Regarding Personal Jurisdiction
The Complaint can be summarily dismissed because Plaintiff failed to plead jurisdictional
allegations against the Bills. See, e.g., Sky Enterprises, LLC v. Offshore Design & Drilling Servs.,
LLC, No. 16-CV-916-J-32PDB, 2017 WL 519115, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2017) (dismissing
complaint with leave to amend and instructing plaintiff to “incorporate additional jurisdictional
allegations and supporting facts in the amended complaint, including which provisions of the long-
arm statute upon which it relies.”). 	Further, where a defendant submits evidence contradicting
plaintiff’s 	jurisdictional 	allegations, 	as 	here, 	Plaintiff 	must 	“prove—not 	merely 	allege—
jurisdiction by affidavits, testimony, or other documents.” Johnson v. Royal Caribbean Cruises
Ltd., 474 F. Supp. 3d 1260, 1265 (S.D. Fla. 2020). 	In this case, Plaintiff has failed to allege
personal jurisdiction in the Complaint. Similarly, in opposing the Motion, Plaintiff has failed to
establish jurisdiction by affidavits, testimony, or other documents. Accordingly, dismissal is
warranted for these deficiencies alone.
2. 	Jurisdictional Standard Generally
Moreover, even if the undersigned considers the parties’ substantive arguments, Plaintiff
has failed to meet his burden to show personal jurisdiction over the Bills. In relevant part, federal
courts follow state law in determining the bounds of their jurisdiction over persons. Daimler AG
v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 125 (2014); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A) (service of process is effective
Case 0:25-cv-60990-AOV Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2026 Page 4 of 11

5
to establish personal jurisdiction over a defendant “who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of
general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located”). 	“A federal court sitting in
diversity undertakes a two-step inquiry in determining whether personal jurisdiction exists: 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.”
Carmouche v. Tamborlee Mgmt., Inc., 789 F.3d 1201, 1203 (11th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted);
see also Broward Marine, Inc. v. S/V Zeus, No. 05-CV-23105, 2010 WL 427496, at *4 (S.D. Fla.
Feb. 1, 2010) (citing Sculptchair v. Century Arts, Ltd., 94 F.3d 623, 626 (11th Cir. 1996)). Both
prongs must be satisfied for personal jurisdiction to exist. Madara v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510, 1514
(11th Cir. 1990); see also Broward Marine, 2010 WL 427496, at *4. Thus, a federal district court
in Florida “may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, to the same extent
that a Florida court may, so long as the exercise is consistent with federal due process
requirements.” Fraser v. Smith, 594 F.3d 842, 846 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
3. 	Florida’s Long-Arm Statute
The reach of Florida’s long-arm statute is a question of Florida law. 	Louis Vuitton
Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339, 1352 (11th Cir. 2013) (citation and quotation omitted);
Madara, 916 F.2d at 1514. Federal courts are therefore “required to apply the statute as would the
Florida Supreme Court,” and are “bound to adhere to the interpretations of Florida’s long-arm
statute offered by Florida’s District Courts of Appeal absent some indication that the Florida
Supreme Court would hold otherwise.” 	Louis Vuitton Malletier, 736 F.3d at 1352 (citation
omitted). 	Moreover, Florida’s long-arm statute is to be strictly construed. 	Id.; Jarboe Fam. &
Friends Irrevocable Living Tr. v. Spielman, 136 So. 3d 666, 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (remanding
Case 0:25-cv-60990-AOV Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2026 Page 5 of 11

6
case for determination of whether a Florida court may exercise in personam jurisdiction over a
nonresident third-party defendant through impleader absent a basis for personal jurisdiction under
Florida’s long-arm statute).
A defendant can be subject to personal jurisdiction under Florida’s long-arm statute in two
ways. 	First, Florida courts may exercise general jurisdiction, even if the claims against the
defendant do not involve its activities in Florida, if the defendant “is engaged in substantial and
not isolated activity within [Florida].” Fla. Stat. § 48.193(2). Second, Florida courts may exercise
specific 	jurisdiction 	when 	a 	defendant 	engages 	in 	certain 	activity 	within 	Florida. 	Id.
§ 48.193(1)(a); see also Madara, 916 F.2d at 1516 n.7 (“Specific personal jurisdiction is founded
on a party’s contacts with the forum state that are related to the cause of action. General personal
jurisdiction arises from a party’s contacts with the forum state that are unrelated to the litigation.”).
A plaintiff seeking to establish personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant “bears
the initial burden of alleging in the complaint sufficient facts to make out a prima facie case of
jurisdiction.” United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260, 1274 (11th Cir. 2009). A prima facie
case requires enough evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Meier ex
rel. Meier v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 288 F.3d 1264, 1269 (11th Cir. 2002). 	If the defendant
challenges personal jurisdiction “by submitting affidavit evidence in support of its position, the
burden traditionally shifts back to the plaintiff to produce evidence supporting jurisdiction.”2
Louis Vuitton Malletier, 736 F.3d at 1350 (citation omitted); see also Broward Marine,
2010 WL 427496, at *4.
2 The burden does not shift, however, if the defendant’s affidavits contain only conclusory
assertions that the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction. 	Louis Vuitton Malletier, 736 F.3d at
1350 (citation and quotation omitted).
Case 0:25-cv-60990-AOV Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2026 Page 6 of 11

7
4. 	General Jurisdiction
The reach of Florida’s general jurisdiction provision “extends to the limits on personal
jurisdiction imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” 	Carmouche,
789 F.3d at 1204 (citation omitted); see Rautenberg v. Falz, 193 So. 3d 924, 931 (Fla. 2d DCA
2016) (noting that proper question is not where the plaintiff experienced a particular injury or
effect but whether the defendant’s conduct connects him to the forum in a meaningful way). A
court’s assertion of general jurisdiction over a foreign (sister-state or foreign-country) corporation
comports with due process when the corporation’s affiliations with the State are so “‘continuous
and systematic’ as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.” Goodyear Dunlop Tires
Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011). 	Only a limited set of affiliations with a
forum will render a defendant amenable to its general jurisdiction. 	Daimler, 571 U.S. at 137;
Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 924. “[T]he ‘paradigm’ forums in which a corporate defendant is ‘at home’
are the corporation’s place of incorporation and its principal place of business.” BNSF Ry. Co. v.
Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549, 1558 (2017); see Daimler, 571 U.S. at 137; Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 924.
In an “exceptional case,” however, a corporate defendant’s operations in another forum “may be
so substantial and of such a nature as to render the corporation at home in that State.” Daimler,
571 U.S. at 139 n.19. General personal jurisdiction is based on a defendant’s substantial activity
in Florida without regard to where the cause of action arose. Louis Vuitton Malletier, 736 F.3d at
1352 (citation omitted). A foreign corporation cannot be subject to general jurisdiction in a forum
unless the corporation’s activities in the forum closely approximate the activities that ordinarily
characterize a corporation’s place of incorporation or principal place of business. Carmouche, 789
F.3d at 1205.
Case 0:25-cv-60990-AOV Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2026 Page 7 of 11

8
5. 	Requirements for Specific Jurisdiction
Under Florida’s long-arm statute, a person, whether or not a citizen or resident of Florida,
who personally or through an agent: (i) operates, conducts, engages in, or carries on a business or
business venture in the state; or (ii) owns, uses, possesses, or holds any real property within the
state, submits to the jurisdiction of Florida courts for any cause of action arising from those acts.
Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(1), (3); see also Floridians for Solar Choice, Inc. v. PCI Consultants, Inc.,
No. 15-CV-62688, 2020 WL 6808669, at *6 (S.D. Fla. July 2, 2020) (finding allegations sufficient
for specific jurisdiction where defendants operated petitioner gathering business in state, giving
rise to plaintiff’s claims), report and recommendation adopted in part, 2020 WL 5757083 (S.D.
Fla. Sept. 28, 2020).
6. 	Due Process Requirements
Under § 48.193(1) of Florida’s long-arm statue, personal jurisdiction cannot be exercised
unless a defendant has sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum state to satisfy the due
process requirement that maintenance of the suit not offend notions of fair play and substantial
justice. BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 581 U.S. 402, 413 (2017); see also Jet Charter, Inc. v. Koeck,
907 F.2d 1110, 1113 (11th Cir. 1990); Madara, 916 F.2d at 1514; Broward Marine, 2010 WL
427496, at *6. Furthermore, due process requires that defendant’s conduct and connection with
the forum state be such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being called into court
there. 	Jet Charter, 907 F.2d at 1113. 	Random, fortuitous or attenuated contacts, or contacts
produced through the unilateral activity of a third person, are insufficient to reasonably indicate to
the defendant that he should anticipate being subject to personal jurisdiction of the forum state’s
courts. Id.; Madara, 916 F.2d at 1514.
Case 0:25-cv-60990-AOV Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2026 Page 8 of 11

9
In specific personal jurisdiction cases, the due process analysis requires a court to consider
whether: (i) the plaintiff’s claims “arise out of or relate to” at least one of the defendant’s contacts
with the forum; (ii) the non-resident defendant “purposefully availed” itself of the privilege of
conducting activities within the forum; and (iii) the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with
“traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Louis Vuitton Malletier, 736 F.3d at 1355.
“The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the first two prongs, and if the plaintiff does so, a
defendant must make a compelling case that the exercise of jurisdiction would violate traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Id. (citation omitted).
7. 	Jurisdiction as Applied to the Allegations in this Case
In opposing dismissal, Plaintiff argues that:
The [Bills] are incorporated in the state of Delaware; play home games in Orchard
Park, New York; play games in many other states including Florida every year
against the Miami Dolphins; have occasionally played football games outside the
USA (e.g., England, Canada); has as its primary owner a person from Pennsylvania
that has his primary residence in Boca Raton, Florida; and a Season Ticket Holder
for 37 years [i.e., Plaintiff] that now lives in Florida too, . . . It sounds like a Federal
Court is the perfect place for all to meet.
***
I think earning money in [the] state counts as ‘conducting business’ . . . .
The [NFL] with its 32 teams including the [Bills], regularly targeted ‘out of
town/region fans’ nationwide (including Florida) with its marketing campaigns for
its ‘NFL Sunday Ticket’ via DirecTV’s ‘Displaced Fan’ campaign. 	A similar
promotion ran national by YouTube’s ‘Fish-Out-of-Water’ marketing ads. This
allowed fans, no matter where they lived in the USA, to watch their ‘home’ team
wherever they live now. This clearly shows that the [Bills] and the [NFL] continue
to market to fans no matter where they live – thus crossing ‘state lines’ while doing
so.
(ECF No. 27-1 at 11-12). However, “[a] plaintiff seeking to subject a nonresident defendant to
jurisdiction of the court through the long-arm statute must do more than allege facts that show a
Case 0:25-cv-60990-AOV Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2026 Page 9 of 11

10
possibility of jurisdiction.” 	Ash v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 991 F. Supp. 2d 1214, 1216
(S.D. Fla. 2013) (citing Jet Charter, 907 F.2d at 1112). 	Plaintiff’s conclusionary arguments,
without supporting evidence, fail to meet his burden.
Conversely, Defendants’ requests for dismissal includes the Declaration of Chris Colleary,
as Vice President of Ticket Sales & Service for the Bills. (ECF No. 8-2 at 2). Colleary declares
that the Bills: (i) is a Delaware LLC, with a principal place of business in New York; (ii) is not
registered to do business in Florida; (iii) has no employees or offices in Florida; (iv) does not sell
season tickets to be consumed in Florida; (v) does not directly solicit Florida residents to purchase
season ticket memberships to Bill games in New York; and (vi) has sales offices in New York and
all season tickets sold by the Bills are tickets to the football games held at Highmark Stadium in
Orchard Park, New York. Id.; see also (ECF No. 29 at 5). Against Defendants’ uncontradicted
evidence, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to establish that this Court has personal jurisdiction
over the Bills. 	See, e.g., Johns v. Taramita, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1021, 1031 (S.D. Fla. 2001)
(concluding that absence of Florida contacts compels the conclusion that petitioner’s have failed
to satisfy Florida’s long-arm statute insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction); cf. Ginsberg v.
Vitamins Because LLC, No. 19-CV-22702, 2021 WL 7707264, at *13 (S.D. Fla. June 9, 2021)
(finding unrebutted allegations sufficient to satisfy Florida’s long-arm statute and requirements of
due process).
Because the Court finds that it lacks personal jurisdiction over the Bills, it declines to
address Defendants’ other challenges to the alleged claims, including: (i) whether the claims are
subject to mandatory arbitration; and (ii) whether Plaintiff fails to state a claim. See (ECF No. 8 at
11-18).
Case 0:25-cv-60990-AOV Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2026 Page 10 of 11

11
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJDUGED that:
1. 	Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint and Buffalo Bills, LLC’s
Alternative 	Motion 	to 	Compel 	Arbitration 	(ECF 	No. 	8) 	is 	GRANTED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.3 This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Bills. 	Further, Plaintiff has
failed to allege any claims against the NFL; and
2. 	The case is administratively CLOSED and all pending motions are DENIED
AS MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED at Chambers, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on January 27, 2026.
___________________________________
ALICIA O. VALLE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: Counsel of record
Timothy Oswald, Pro Se
425 NE 27th Drive
Wilton Manors, FL 33334
3 Defendants argue that dismissal should be with prejudice. See (ECF No. 8 at 18-19). Although
Plaintiff has failed to establish personal jurisdiction before this Court, he is free to pursue
arbitration of his purported claims and/or litigation where he can establish proper jurisdiction.
Case 0:25-cv-60990-AOV Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2026 Page 11 of 11