Rutenburg v. Twitter, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 MARIA RUTENBURG, Case No. 4:21-cv-00548-YGR

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL 9 v. FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION Re: Dkt. Nos. 11, 15 Defendant. 11

12 13 TO MARIA RUTENBURG AND HER COUNSEL OF RECORD: 14 YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why this case should not be 15 dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (See Dkt. No. 11 at 1 (“A fundamental flaw in 16 Rutenburg’s entire case is that the claimed rights under the First Amendment (and the corollary 17 claims under the Fourteenth Amendment) cannot be enforced against a private entity such as 18 defendant Twitter, Inc.” (citing Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S.Ct. 1921, 1928 19 (2019) (“The text and original meaning of those Amendments, as well as this Court's longstanding 20 precedents, establish that the Free Speech Clause prohibits only governmental abridgment of 21 speech. The Free Speech Clause does not prohibit private abridgment of speech.” (emphasis in 22 original)); Belgau v. Inslee, 975 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The Supreme Court has long held 23 that ‘merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful,’ falls outside the purview of the 24 Fourteenth Amendment.” (citing Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1002, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 73 25 L.Ed.2d 534 (1982))); Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 877 F.3d 833, 837 (9th Cir. 2017) (“A 26 threshold requirement of any constitutional claim is the presence of state action. . . . Because the 27 First Amendment right to petition is a guarantee only against abridgment by [the] government, . . . 1 whether [a defendant] infringed upon [a plaintiff’s] First Amendment rights... .” (internal 2 citations and quotation marks omitted)); Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 157 (1978) 3 (“While as a factual matter any person with sufficient physical power may deprive a person of his 4 property, only a State or a private person whose action may be fairly treated as that of the State 5 itself... may deprive him of an interest encompassed within the Fourteenth Amendment's 6 protection ....” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)))).) A response to this Order to 7 Show Cause shall be filed from Rutenburg on or before February 24, 2021. Defendant Twitter 8 Inc. shall file a response to Ruenburg’s response on or before March 10, 2021. Rutenburg is 9 permitted to file a reply on or before March 17, 2021. 10 In light of this Order to Show Cause, the parties’ stipulation as to the briefing schedule of 11 any forthcoming motion for preliminary injunction or motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 15) is DENIED 12 ASMoorT. Moreover, based on the foregoing and in the conservation of limited judicial resources, g 13 the Court EXTENDS Twitter’s response date to the complaint by ninety (90) days to May 19, 2021. 14 This Order terminates Docket Number 15. 3 15 IT Is SO ORDERED. A 16 || Dated: February 11, 2021

Lyne Herpcrlflecr, YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGER 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28