Gary Black v. Google, Inc.

457 F. App'x 622

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 1, 2011
• Docket: 10-16992
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Gary Black and Holli Beam-Black appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action arising irom an anonymous negative review of their business posted on Google, Inc.’s online business directory. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action as precluded by section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) because plaintiffs seek to impose liability on Google for content created by a third party. See Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc) (“Section 230 of the CDA immunizes providers of interactive computer services against liability arising from content created by third parties. ...”); Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, 1122 (9th Cir.2003) (“Through [section 230 of the CDA], Congress granted most Internet services immunity from liability for publishing false or defamatory material so long as the information was provided by another party.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ post-judgment requests for reconsideration and for a stay pending appeal. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration); Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1435-36 (9th Cir.1983) (setting forth standard of review and criteria for evaluating a stay pending appeal).

Plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Plaintiffs’ request to correct this court’s docket is granted. In accordance with this court’s order dated March 21, 2011, the Clerk shall correct docket entry number 15 to reflect the filing of plaintiffs’ opening brief received on December 20, 2010, instead of plaintiffs’ opening brief received on January 3, 2011.

AFFIRMED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.