Natalie Scott v. Meta Platforms Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 3, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-09955
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NATALIE SCOTT, Case No. 25-cv-09955-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 9 v. MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(6) 10 META PLATFORMS INC., 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 39

12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiff Natalie Scott, proceeding pro se, filed suit against Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. 15 (“Meta”), alleging that she suffered harm in connection with her Facebook account. ECF No. 1-2. 16 Pending before the Court is Meta’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 12(b)(6). ECF No. 39 (“Mot.”). The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral 18 argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and VACATES the March 12, 2026, hearing. For 19 the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion.1 20 II. BACKGROUND 21 A. Factual Background 22 Scott, a New York resident, is a Facebook account holder. Compl. at 1 (ECF No. 1-2). 23 Meta, a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in California, is “an American 24 multinational technology company” that owns and operates several social media platforms, 25 including Facebook. Id.; Not. of Removal at 3 (ECF No. 1). 26

27 1 The parties consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ECF Nos. 1 Overall, Scott alleges that her “Facebook account was weaponized against her” when it 2 was “used for intense privacy violations, offline tracking and harassment, sexual solicitation, 3 intentional psychological abuse,” and “fundamental features on her account were altered without 4 her consent to inflict reputational damage.” Compl. at 2. 5 1. Meta’s Services 6 Meta owns and operates Facebook. Id. at 1. Every Facebook user must agree to Meta’s 7 Terms of Service (“TOS”). Declaration of Michael Duffey (“Duffey Decl.”) ¶ 3, Ex. A (TOS)2 8 (ECF No. 39-1). 9 The TOS contains a section, “What you can share and do on Meta Products,” that states, in 10 relevant part:

11 We can remove or restrict access to content that is in violation of these provisions. We can also suspend or disable your account for conduct 12 that violates these provisions, as provided in Section 4.2. 13 TOS at Section 3.2. 14 The TOS contains a section, “Limits on liability,” that states:

15 We work hard to provide the best Products we can and to specify clear guidelines for everyone who uses them. Our Products, however, are 16 provided ‘as is,’ and we make no guarantees that they always will be safe, secure, or error-free, or that they will function without 17 disruptions, delays, or imperfections. To the extent permitted by law, we also DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS 18 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR 19 PURPOSE, TITLE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. We do not control or direct what people and others do or say, and we are not 20 responsible for their actions or conduct (whether online or offline) or any content they share (including offensive, inappropriate, obscene, 21 unlawful, and other objectionable content).

22 We cannot predict when issues might arise with our Products. Accordingly, our liability shall be limited to the fullest extent 23 permitted by applicable law, and under no circumstance will we be liable to you for any lost profits, revenues, information, or data, or 24 consequential, special, indirect, exemplary, punitive, or incidental damages arising out of or related to these Terms or the Meta Products 25 (however caused and on any theory of liability, including negligence), even if we have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Our 26

27 2 Meta’s TOS are publicly available at the following link: https://www.facebook.com/terms/. See aggregate liability arising out of or relating to these Terms or the Meta 1 Products will not exceed the greater of $100 or the amount you have paid us in the past twelve months. 2

3 Id. at Section 4.3 (emphasis in original).

4 Finally, the TOS contains a section, “Disputes,” that states, in relevant part: 5 We try to provide clear rules so that we can limit or hopefully avoid disputes between you and us. If a dispute does arise, however, it's 6 useful to know up front where it can be resolved and what laws will apply. 7 You and Meta each agree that any claim, cause of action, or dispute 8 between us that arises out of or relates to these Terms or your access or use of the Meta Products shall be resolved exclusively in the U.S. 9 District Court for the Northern District of California or a state court located in San Mateo County. You also agree to submit to the 10 personal jurisdiction of either of these courts for the purpose of litigating any such claim, and that the laws of the State of California 11 will govern these Terms and any claim, cause of action, or dispute without regard to conflict of law provisions. 12

13 Id. at Section 4.4. 14 2. The Parties’ Relationship 15 Scott has a “Facebook account under the name of Aphrasia Lee” (the “Account”) that “has 16 been active for a few years.” Compl. at 1. Meta locked the Account “and prevented [Scott] from 17 accessing it for 1.5 years.” Id. at 3. 18 On May 30, 2021, Scott requested access to her Account from Meta. Id. at 5–6. On June 19 1, 2021, Scott’s password on her Account was changed, and she was blocked from accessing her 20 Account. Id. at 13–14. Also on June 1, 2021, Scott “noted her complaint to the Attorney 21 General’s office about it (ie: Intake #1-262394402).” Id. at 13. When Scott tried to access her 22 Account, she “was taken to multiple verification steps and pages” and did not obtain access to her 23 Account. Id. at 14. 24 Scott’s Account was deactivated in early July 2022. Id. at 6. On July 27, 2022, Scott’s 25 Account “was blocked from her access.” Id. at 13. After obtaining access to the Account, Scott 26 deactivated the Account again. Id. 27 Meta locked Scott’s Account “from August 2, 2022 for close to 1.5 years.” Id. at 15. Scott 1 referred Scott to Patrick Bocash3 “after there was a continued delay and missed attempts at 2 regaining access” to Scott’s locked Account. Id. On August 3, 2022, Scott received an email 3 from Facebook Security that her Account was reactivated. Id. at 16. But Scott was still locked out 4 of her Account. Id. Scott regained access to her Account in December 2023. Id. at 17. 5 While Scott’s account was locked between 2022–2023, she “decided to open a new 6 Facebook account to research any posted deepfakes on herself.” Id. Meta would not allow her to 7 use her name, Natalie Scott, for any new accounts. Id. Scott used the new account “infrequently 8 to check on other user accounts.” Id. When checking other accounts, Scott “came across two 9 users who had either her cellphone # or email address in their user profile.” Id. at 18. 10 On May 11, 2024, Scott logged out of her Account, and “she was taken to 3 tabs of HTML 11 code” of her Account user data that showed up on the tabs. Id. at 6. Scott’s Account was 12 deactivated on February 16, 2025. Id. at 5. 13 Between 2021–2025, Scott sent emails to Meta reporting issues with her Facebook 14 Account—she emailed “Facebook Help Support,” “Facebook Security,” “Mark Zuckerberg,” 15 “Kevin O’Donnell,”4 and “Facebook Escalation Team.” Id. at 2, 5–8, 12–13, 15–16, 18, 20. 16 3. Scott’s Allegations 17 Scott alleges the following in the Complaint. Scott’s Account was weaponized “over a 18 period of 2 plus years.” Id. at 8. Overall, during this time, Meta did not respond to Scott’s email 19 communications, prevented Scott from accessing her Account, tracked Scott’s location and data 20 offline, deceived Scott about how the Facebook platform operated, used her Account for 21 experimentation, and allowed her Account to be used for psychological abuse. Id. at 1–4, 20–22. 22 Meta neglected “to take measures to protect, inform and respond” to Scott’s notifications 23 and complaints of continued misuse of her Account, and her pleas for help. Id. at 22. Scott 24 contacted Meta “a few times about privacy violation concerns, questioned how her deactivated 25 account was still being accessed and complained about the resulting offline harassment, but she 26

27 3 The Complaint does not explain who Bocash is. 1 never received a reply.” Id. at 12. For example, Scott emailed Facebook Security multiple times 2 in 2022 regarding unauthorized access to her Account. Id. at 5–6. When her Account “was locked 3 by Facebook from August 2, 2022 for close to 1.5 years,” Scott emailed Facebook Security 4 “multiple times about receiving email notifications about other [Facebook] users activity and 5 friend requests being accepted on” her Account. Id. at 15. Scott emailed Facebook Help Security 6 during this time her Account was locked “to notify them that her cellphone number was being 7 used in the Facebook profile of another user.” Id. at 18. And on February 16, 2025, Scott emailed 8 Facebook Help Support about unauthorized activity on her Account when the Account “was 9 supposed to have been deactivated.” Id. at 5. 10 Meta intentionally blocked Scott’s access to her Facebook Account for one and a half 11 years. Id. at 21. After Meta locked Scott’s Account in 2022, it seemed like Meta “was finding 12 reasons to deny her access” to her Account. Id. at 16. Scott received “mismatched STM codes” 13 when trying to access her Account, encountered multiple pages for account verifications, and was 14 unable to regain access to her Account when Meta would not accept her “legitimate government 15 identification.” Id. at 12–15, 21. 16 Scott believes that Meta used her Account “for experimentation by Facebook.” Id. at 3. 17 Scott’s Account Activity Log showed “duplicate posts for a single post” which led her to believe 18 that “a duplicate account was being shown and visible to other Facebook users that she was unable 19 to view.” Id. at 7. Between 2023–2024, Scott received multiple friend suggestions on her 20 Account for “women in bras and bare breasts” and women “in the sex trade.” Id. at 9. After 21 Bocash “contacted his Facebook contact, these sexually explicit friend suggestions stopped.” Id. 22 This made Scott question if Facebook employees “were responsible for bombarding her with 23 friend suggestions laden with sexual content.” Id. Scott “was being facially tagged and pointed 24 out offline when she was in public.” Id. at 10. For example, Scott was stalked and facially 25 profiled in 2023 while running errands in New York City, subjected to vulgar comments in 2023 26 during a stay in New Jersey, and verbally harassed in 2024 while residing in Oregon. Id. at 10–11. 27 Scott experienced anxiety because she believed her Account “was being used for experimentation” 1 Meta used Facebook to track Scott’s “cellphone usage off the Facebook platform,” her 2 “offline communication,” her cellphone contacts, and her location. Id. at 4, 9, 20–21. These 3 “privacy violations . . . resulted in unwanted tracking, facial profiling and tagging, stalking and 4 harassment offline which has occurred over a period of 13 years.” Id. at 22. For example, 5 between August 2, 2022, to November 30, 2022, Scott received Account notifications about 6 Facebook users linked to her Account who were located in Southeast Asia “during the period 7 when [Scott’s] employment project locations were based in Southeast Asia.” Id. at 9. Scott felt 8 like she was being tracked because she received “notifications about men from locations where her 9 remote projects were based.” Id. And in 2023, Meta used Facebook to track

10 the new cellphone contact that [Scott] began to communicate with on her phone via text. The contact was her cousin, Dexter Raphael. 11 Since her Facebook account was still locked, [Scott] created a new Facebook account that she accessed only to view other users online - 12 she had no phone, no user profile data except her cellphone number. And she imported no contacts from her cellphone. 13

14 Id. at 20. On April 21, 2023, Meta, through Facebook, “sent the friend suggestion of Dexter

15 Raphael to [Scott’s] new Facebook account” even though the new account “had no friends, no

16 posts, no identifiable information and only had [Scott’s] cellphone telephone number.” Id. Given

17 that Facebook has billions of users, the friend suggestion showed that Meta “was tracking [Scott’s]

18 cellphone usage off the Facebook platform.” Id. at 20–21. 19 Meta, or its Facebook platform, deceived Scott “about the real number of people who were 20 linked to her account as friends, whom obtained access to her data when she sent posts, the 21 security of her account after it was locked or deactivated, and if posts with harmful content about 22 here was being sent from other accounts in her name, and if photo or sexual content about her was 23 sent from her account to male users.” Id. at 21–22. For example, Facebook’s privacy settings 24 allow users to create “Only Me” posts where content posted to a Facebook account by the account 25 holder is only accessible to that account holder. Id. at 7–8. But Scott’s “Only Me” posts were 26 accessed by other Facebook users even when no one else was supposed to view them. Id. at 22. 27 Even on this privacy setting, “‘everyone’ or ‘anyone’ was still able to access” her Account and 1 Collectively, Scott’s experiences with Meta and its Facebook platform “caused a lot of 2 stress, anxiety, psychological duress, feelings of isolation and being abused.” Id. at 21. Because 3 there was no level of privacy for Scott on her Account, there was “a negative effect on [her] 4 psyche and her trust in technology and social media.” Id. at 22. When Meta unnecessarily 5 prevented Scott from accessing her Account, she experienced “stress, mental duress and feelings 6 of helplessness” because she was “being psychologically attacked and toyed with.” Id. at 14–15. 7 B. Procedural Background 8 On March 17, 2025, Scott, proceeding pro se, filed suit against Meta in the Supreme Court 9 of the State of New York, County of Kings.5 ECF No. 1-2 (“Compl.”). Scott’s Complaint does 10 not contain explicit causes of action. Scott alleges that she suffered “psychological, emotional, 11 and reputational damage, mental and emotional duress, and privacy violations that have resulted in 12 unwanted tracking, facial profiling and tagging, stalking and harassment offline which has 13 occurred over a period of 13 years.” Compl. at 22. Further, Scott alleges that she was harmed by 14 (1) “the neglect of Facebook to take measures to protect, inform, and respond to [Scott’s] 15 notifications and complaints of continued misuse of her account, and her pleas for help”; and (2) 16 the “weaponization of her Facebook account by hackers, Facebook employees or any third party 17 who manipulated settings and used it as a tool of offline harassment.” Id. Scott requests 18 “compensatory damages in the amount of $700,000 or the maximum amount allowed in civil court 19 to compensate” her. Id. 20 On May 23, 2025, Meta removed the case to the United States District Court for the 21 Eastern District of New York. ECF No. 1 (“Not. of Removal”). On October 24, 2025, the Eastern 22 District of New York transferred the case to the Northern District of California.6 ECF No. 28. 23 On January 13, 2026, Meta filed the instant Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of 24 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 39 (“Mot.”). Meta also filed a request for judicial notice. 25

26 5 See Natalie Scott v. Meta Platforms, Inc. fka Facebook, Index No. 237-2025.

27 6 See Scott v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 25-cv-2888-NRM(TAM), 2025 WL 2997300 (E.D.N.Y. 1 ECF No. 40. On February 12, 2026, Scott filed an Opposition.7 ECF No. 46 (“Opp.”). On 2 February 24, 2026, Meta filed a Reply. ECF No. 48 (“Reply”). On February 27, 2026, Scott filed 3 a letter brief for “Supplemental Material and Objection to Reply Evidence.” ECF No. 49. 4 III. LEGAL STANDARD 5 A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) “tests the legal 6 sufficiency of a claim. A claim may be dismissed only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff 7 can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Cook v. 8 Brewer, 637 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2011) (cleaned up). Rule 8 provides that a complaint must 9 contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Thus, a complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that 11 is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Plausibility does 12 not mean probability, but it requires “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 13 unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint must therefore provide a 14 defendant with “fair notice” of the claims against it and the grounds for relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. 15 at 555 (citation omitted). 16 In considering a motion to dismiss, the court accepts factual allegations in the complaint as 17 true and construes the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Manzarek v. 18 St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008); accord Erickson v. Pardus, 19 551 U.S. 89, 93–94 (2007). However, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the 20 allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of 21 the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” 22 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 23

24 7 Scott initially filed an opposition on February 10, 2026. ECF No. 44. On February 11, 2026, Scott filed a letter brief with the Court requesting to submit a revised opposition and new exhibits. 25 ECF No. 45. Scott filed the revised opposition and exhibits on February 12, 2026. ECF No. 46. On February 23, 2026, Scott filed an “additional response to Meta’s dispute” regarding her IIED 26 claim. ECF No. 47. Meta does not object to Scott’s revised opposition at ECF No. 46. See generally Reply. However, Meta objects to the Court considering Scott’s additional arguments 27 with respect to her IIED claim put forward in ECF No. 47. See id. at 7 n.3. The Court therefore 1 If a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is granted, the “court should grant leave to amend even if no 2 request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly 3 be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 4 banc) (cleaned up). A court “may exercise its discretion to deny leave to amend due to ‘undue 5 delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 6 amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party . . ., [and] futility of 7 amendment.’” Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 892–93 (9th Cir. 2010) 8 (alterations in original) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Courts have broader 9 discretion in denying motions for leave to amend after leave to amend has already been granted. 10 See Rich v. Shrader, 823 F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[W]hen the district court has already 11 afforded a plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint, it has wide discretion in granting or 12 refusing leave to amend after the first amendment, and only upon gross abuse will its rulings be 13 disturbed.”) (cleaned up); Chodos v. W. Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]hen 14 a district court has already granted a plaintiff leave to amend, its discretion in deciding subsequent 15 motions to amend is particularly broad.”) (cleaned up). 16 IV. DISCUSSION 17 Meta moves to dismiss Scott’s Complaint in its entirely for failing to state a cognizable 18 claim. Mot. at 1. Overall, Meta argues that (1) the Complaint fails to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil 19 Procedure 8; (2) Meta’s TOS bars Scott’s claims; (3) the Complaint fails to state a plausible claim; 20 and (4) Scott’s claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Id. at 1–2. 21 In sum, the Court concludes that Scott’s Complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of 22 Civil Procedure 8. Therefore, dismissal is warranted. Because it is not clear that the deficiencies 23 of the Complaint could not be cured by amendment, leave to amend is appropriate. 24 A. Request For Judicial Notice 25 Meta requests the Court take judicial notice of one document: the Meta Terms of Service 26 (TOS). ECF No. 40; see Duffey Decl., Ex. A. Meta’s TOS are publicly available online. See 27 Mot. at 2 n.1. Scott does not oppose the request. See generally Opp. 1 Court’s consideration of extra-pleading materials is limited and matters outside of the pleading 2 cannot be considered without converting the motion into a motion for summary judgment. See 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 12(d). However, there are two exceptions—the incorporation-by- 4 reference doctrine and judicial notice. Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 998 5 (9th Cir. 2018). 6 Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court may take judicial notice of matters that are 7 (1) generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) capable of accurate and 8 ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. 9 R. Evid. 201(b). 10 Here, the Court agrees that it is appropriate to take judicial notice of Meta’s TOS “because 11 they are publicly available webpages and their contents are not subject to reasonable dispute.” 12 Zhang v. Twitter Inc., No. 23-cv-00980-JSC, 2023 WL 5493823, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 13 2023); see also Trudeau v. Google LLC, 349 F. Supp. 3d 869, 876 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (taking 14 judicial notice of Google’s terms of service because they are “not the subject of reasonable dispute 15 and their authenticity is not in question”). 16 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Meta’s request to take judicial notice of Meta’s TOS. 17 B. Motion For Leave To File Sur-Reply 18 On February 27, 2026—after briefing on Meta’s Motion was complete—Scott filed a letter 19 brief for “Supplemental Material and Objection to Reply Evidence.” ECF No. 49. Scott requests 20 approval to submit to the Court (1) “Supplemental Material with detailed references to the claims 21 that [she] submitted previously” to the Court and Meta; and (2) “an Objection to Reply Evidence 22 for any new argument or evidence that Meta presented in its Reply Brief without” the Court’s pre- 23 approval. Id. The Court construes Scott’s letter brief as a motion for leave to file a sur-reply. 24 Under the Local Rules, a party must obtain the court’s permission to file supplementary 25 material after a reply is filed, unless the additional material comprises an objection to new 26 evidence proffered in the reply or a newly published judicial opinion. Civ. L.R. 7.3(d). 27 Here, the Court finds that granting Scott leave to file a sur-reply is not warranted. To be 1 consider these matters only if the adverse party is given an opportunity to respond.” Banga v. 2 First USA, NA, 29 F. Supp. 3d 1270, 1276 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (citing El Pollo Loco, Inc. v. Hashim, 3 316 F.3d 1032, 1040–41 (9th Cir. 2003)). However, Scott fails to identify any new evidence or 4 legal argument proffered by Meta for the first time in Meta’s Reply. First, Meta did not submit 5 any evidence with its Reply. See generally Reply. Second, Scott can address her concern—that 6 “Meta has not referred to or viewed the Exhibits which [she] submitted with [her] original civil 7 lawsuit”—in her amended complaint. ECF No. 49. Because an amended complaint replaces the 8 previous complaint, Scott must attach any exhibits that she wishes to include with her complaint to 9 her amended complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, 10 Scott has not demonstrated a valid reason exists for additional briefing. Cf. Banga, 29 F. Supp. 3d 11 at 1276. 12 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Scott’s request to file a sur-reply. 13 C. Sufficiency Of Pleading 14 Meta argues that the Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8’s pleading standards because it 15 “fails to describe any alleged conduct by Meta with the coherence necessary to give Meta notice of 16 any specific claim asserted against it.” Mot. at 5:23–6:18. Meta further argues that under Rule 17 12(b)(6), the “Complaint fails on the merits because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can 18 be granted.” Id. at 9:1–13:4. 19 Scott contends that she provided “factual evidence that shows Meta’s negligence” and that 20 its “wrongdoing was in its blatant breach of its ‘Duty of Care’ and in its Intentional Tort.” Opp. at 21 6–8. Scott further contends that “Meta was negligent in its ‘Duty of Care’ and enforced 22 Intentional Tort,” misled “users on the functionality and security of basic security features,” 23 violated “data protection and privacy laws,” and failed to design a safe product. Id. at 9–15. 24 Finally, Scott contends that she was harmed by Meta’s “product design,” by “the reckless behavior 25 of the employees who represent Facebook,” and by Meta’s “privacy intrusion.” Id. at 17, 19. 26 1. Rule 8 27 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff’s complaint must contain “a short 1 8(a)(2). The failure to comply with Rule 8 is a basis for dismissal that is not dependent on 2 whether the complaint is without merit. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996). 3 “Something labeled a complaint but written . . . without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to 4 whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions of a 5 complaint.” Id. at 1180. To comply with Rule 8, a complaint need not provide detailed factual 6 allegations, but it is “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief.” 7 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (cleaned up). A plaintiff must do more than assert “labels and 8 conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. 9 Rather, the plaintiff must provide sufficient factual allegations “to state a claim to relief that is 10 plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 11 Here, because Scott is a pro se plaintiff, the Court must construe her pleadings liberally 12 and afford her the benefit of the doubt. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). 13 However, Scott’s pro se status does not relieve her of conformity to the pleading rules. See, e.g., 14 Romano v. U.S. Army Core of Eng’rs, No. 3:17-cv-00930-JD, 2017 WL 6448221, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 15 Dec. 18, 2017). 16 The Ninth Circuit recently held that “shotgun pleadings,” where “a party indiscriminately 17 incorporates assertions from one count to another,” can serve as a basis for dismissal under Rule 8. 18 Gibson v. City of Portland, 165 F.4th 1265, 1288–90 (9th Cir. 2026); see id. at 1290 (“We have a 19 prudential obligation to clarify to district courts that in an appropriate case, like this one, they can 20 dismiss shotgun pleadings.”). In other words, shotgun pleadings “that fail to provide the opposing 21 parties and the district court with sufficient notice of the claims and their basis” fail under Rule 8. 22 Id. at 1290. Importantly, “district courts do not have to accept such shotgun pleadings. It is not 23 the job of the district courts to make sense of the pleading, to supply facts to support the claim, or 24 to imagine the claims that might fit the facts.” Id. at 1289. Complaints that fail “to separate into a 25 different count each cause of action or claim for relief” are one type of shotgun pleading. Id. at 26 1288 (citation omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b) (“If doing so would promote clarity, each 27 claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence—and each defense other than a denial— 1 conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of 2 action.” Gibson, 165 F.4th at 1288. 3 Applying this framework, the Court concludes that Scott’s Complaint does not comply 4 with Rule 8. Meta is correct that the Complaint “does not allege any specific claims.” Mot. at 5 6:5–18; see also Reply at 2:10–26 (“[T]he Complaint fails to satisfy Rule 8 because it consists 6 entirely of vague and disjointed allegations that do not assert any specific cause of action.”). 7 Under a fair reading of the Complaint, as informed by Scott’s Opposition, the Court finds that 8 Scott attempts to allege claims sounding in negligence, emotional distress, and invasion of 9 privacy. See Compl. at 22 (discussing “the neglect of Facebook” and “emotional duress, and 10 privacy violations”); Opp. at 9–21 (discussing claims for negligence, IIED, and “privacy 11 intrusion”). But an attempt is not enough—the threshold question under Rule 8 is whether Scott 12 pleads sufficient facts to give Meta “fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it 13 rests.” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (simplified). In Gibson, the Ninth Circuit explained that the 14 plaintiff’s complaint violated Rule 8 because, among other things, the complaint bundled five 15 separate causes of action into a single claim, each of which was apparently supported by all facts 16 alleged in the preceding paragraphs. Gibson, 165 F.4th at 1291. So too here. Scott’s Complaint 17 bundles any possible causes of action into one lump statement. See Compl. at 22. And the 18 Complaint does not explain which factual allegations are tied to which causes of action. To 19 comply with Rule 8, “[f]actual allegations, however detailed, must be tied to corresponding causes 20 of action.” Gibson, 165 F.4th at 1293. Thus, like Gibson, Scott’s Complaint is inadequate 21 because it fails to link alleged facts to causes of action. Id. at 1291. 22 Absent a Rule 8-compliant pleading, the Court is left to speculate about the causes of 23 action pleaded by Scott. Id. at 1295. However, Scott may replead her Complaint to comply with 24 Rule 8’s pleading requirement. See id. at 1290 (“But when district courts identify shotgun 25 pleadings, they should not hesitate to afford such parties one last opportunity to make themselves 26 understood.”). To do so, Scott must amend the Complaint to allege: (1) the specific laws or rights 27 that she thinks Meta violated; (2) for each law or right, state the specific factual allegations that 1 what those people did to her; and (3) how she was harmed. 2 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Meta’s motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety. 3 The Court GRANTS Scott leave to amend. In the absence of a Rule 8-compliant pleading, the 4 Court declines to address Meta’s remaining arguments because the Court does not know what 5 facts are connected to which causes of action. 6 V. CONCLUSION 7 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Meta’s Motion to Dismiss. However, 8 given Scott’s pro se status, and because it is not clear that the deficiencies of the Complaint could 9 not be cured by amendment, the Court GRANTS Scott the opportunity to file an amended 10 complaint. Scott may file an amended complaint by April 2, 2026. 11 A. REQUIREMENTS FOR AMENDED COMPLAINT 12 Because an amended complaint replaces the previous complaint, it may not incorporate 13 claims or allegations in the original complaint by reference. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Instead, 14 any amendment must include all of the facts and claims to be presented and all of the defendants 15 that are to be sued. In addition, any amended complaint must include the following sections:

16 Caption Page On the first page, list the names of the defendant(s), the case number 17 used in this order (25-cv-9955-TSH), the title (“FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT”), and write “Demand for Jury Trial” if you want your 18 case to be heard by a jury.

19 Form of Pleadings The factual allegations and claims must be written in numbered 20 paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances. 21 Subject Matter Jurisdiction 22 The first numbered paragraph in your complaint (labeled “Jurisdiction”) should explain why this Court has the power to decide 23 this kind of case. A federal court can hear a case based on a federal question jurisdiction (a violation of federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 24 1331) or diversity jurisdiction (when all plaintiffs and all defendants are citizens of different states disputing more than $75,000) under 28 25 U.S.C. § 1332.

26 Parties In separate paragraphs for each party, identify the plaintiff(s) and 27 defendant(s) in the case. Statement of Facts 1 Explain the important facts in your case in numbered paragraphs, describing how the defendant(s) violated the law and how you have 2 been injured. 3 Claims Include a separate heading for each legal claim (Claim 1, Claim 2, 4 etc.), identifying the specific law that you think the defendant(s) violated and explaining in numbered paragraphs what each defendant 5 did to violate each law. 6 7 || B. RESOURCES 8 Scott may wish to seek assistance from the Federal Pro Bono Project, a free service offered 9 || by the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Association of San Francisco. You may request an 10 || appointment by emailing fedpro@sfbar.org or calling 415-782-8982. At the Federal Pro Bono 11 Project, you will be able to speak with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help but « 12 || notrepresentation. More information is available at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-

|) litigants’.

14 Scott may also wish to obtain a copy of this District’s Handbook for Litigants Without a 15 || Lawyer, which provides instructions on how to proceed at every stage of your case. The Q 16 |] handbook is available in person at the Clerk’s Office and online at:

17 https://www.cand.uscourts. gov/pro-se-litigants/. Zz 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: March 3, 2026

THOMAS S. HIXSON 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28