David Angel Sifuentes v. Google, LLC

Opinion

3 4 DAVID ANGEL SIFUENTES, Case No. 25-cv-09666-JD

5 Plaintiff, ORDER RE REPORT AND 6 v. RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSAL

Defendant. 8

9 Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero filed a report recommending dismissal of pro se plaintiff 10 David Angel Sifuentes’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a 11 claim upon which relief may be granted. Dkt. No. 13. Sifuentes timely objected to that report and 12 recommendation, Dkt. No. 15, and also filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, Dkt. 13 No. 16, and an amended complaint, Dkt. No. 17. 14 After independently reviewing the report and recommendation, it is adopted in full, and 15 Sifuentes’ objections are denied. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the prior 16 complaint with leave to amend, and so the amended complaint is deemed filed. The amended 17 complaint did not overcome the shortfalls identified in the report and recommendation, and is 18 dismissed with prejudice. 19 With respect to the report and recommendation, Sifuentes’ original complaint alleged 20 violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Telecommunications Act, and a variety of 21 state law claims, relating to the fact that Sifuentes’ personal information was allegedly found in 22 the “’Mother of All Breaches,’ a dataset of 183 million accounts that included Google users,” and 23 that Google had previously sent him a privacy notice and notice of an issue with his SIM card. 24 Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3. Judge Spero concluded, among other determinations, that Sifuentes’ complaint 25 lacked factual specificity sufficient to appropriately allege any of Sifuentes’ federal or state law 26 claims. Dkt. No. 13 at 6-12. For example, Judge Spero noted that Sifuentes failed to allege any 27 facts that would show there was a dispute from a credit reporting agency that would even give rise ] customer proprietary network information under the Telecommunications Act. /d. at 11. 2 The Court’s independent review indicates that the report and recommendation is correct in 3 all respects. Sifuentes’ objections are little more than a string of cursory statements to the effect 4 that the report and recommendation is “not accurate,” without any good reason to so conclude. 5 Dkt. No. 15 at 1. Consequently, the report and recommendation is adopted in full. Dkt. No. 13. 6 With respect to the amended complaint, none of the shortcomings that resulted in dismissal 7 were meaningfully addressed. The amended complaint is again almost entirely devoid of facts 8 that might plausibly allege a claim, such as the contents of the private information said to have 9 been revealed, when the alleged breach occurred, why Google might be deemed a “furnisher” of 10 Sifuentes’ information to a credit reporting agency, how Google’s actions breached the California 11 Consumer Privacy Act or the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, and the like. Overall, the 12 claims are simply “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 13 conclusory statements,” that “do not suffice” to plausibly allege a claim. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 14 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Consequently, the amended complaint is dismissed. 3 15 Sifuentes’ pleadings have been afforded the generous review given to pro se litigants. a 16 || Even so, they “still must satisfy the requirements of Rule 8 and state facts sufficient to allege a 17 plausible claim.” Nordin v. Scott, No. 3:21-CV-04717-JD, 2021 WL 4710697, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Zz 18 || Oct. 8, 2021) (citation omitted), aff'd, No. 22-15816, 2023 WL 4418595 (9th Cir. July 10, 2023). 19 Sifuentes has now filed multiple complaints. He was given leave to amend in a dismissal order 20 that identified the shortcomings in his complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 21 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court’s discretion in providing additional opportunities to amend is 22 “particularly broad,” Chodos v. West Publishing Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002), and the 23 record indicates that further amendment would not be productive. Consequently, dismissal is 24 without further leave to amend, and the case is closed. 26 Dated: May 19, 2026 27 JAMES/#PONATO 28 United Btates District Judge