Rutenburg v. Twitter, Inc.

Opinion

1 4 5 MARIA RUTENBURG, Case No. 4:21-cv-00548-YGR

6 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 7 v.

8 TWITTER, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 22 Defendant. 9

10 11 The Court previously ordered this case dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 12 (Dkt. No. 21.) Plaintiff Maria Rutenburg subsequently filed a motion requesting leave to file a 13 second amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 22.) Defendant Twitter Inc. opposes the motion. (Dkt. No. 14 23; see also Dkt. No. 24 (reply).) Having reviewed the parties’ briefing, and for the reasons set 15 forth below, the Court DENIES the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.1 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a trial court should “freely give leave 17 when justice so requires.” A district court “may exercise its discretion to deny leave to amend due 18 to ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on part of the movant, repeated failure to cure 19 deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party . . . , [and] 20 futility of amendment.’” Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 892 (9th Cir. 2010) 21 (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). “Leave to amend need not be given if a 22 complaint, as amended, is subject to dismissal.” Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc., 885 F.2d 23 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Carrico v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 656 F.3d 1002, 1008 24 (9th Cir. 2011). 25 1 The Court has reviewed the papers submitted by the parties in connection with the 26 motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The Court has determined that the motion is appropriate for decision without oral argument, as permitted by Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. See also Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pacific ] Here, Rutenburg’s proposed amendments do not address the Court’s analysis from the 2 prior Order dismissing this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and are thus futile. Instead, 3 these new allegations consist of additional details of Twitter, former President Donald Trump and 4 his Twitter account, Rutenburg’s Twitter usage, and a discussion of the Second Circuit case, 5 Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, 928 F. 3d 226 (2d Cir. 2019). These proposed 6 amendments do not alter, let alone address, the Court’s prior determination that “Twitter is not a 7 state actor, and is not exercising any sovereign state authority.” (Dkt. No. 21 at 5.). Again, 8 “(s]imply put, Rutenburg cannot transform Twitter into a ‘state actor’ based on an allegation that 9 the company ‘administered’ former President Trump’s account, which is all that is alleged in the 10 amended complaint.” (/d. at 4.) In light of these defects, Rutenburg’s proposed amendments are 11 futile and do not warrant the granting of this motion. 12 Accordingly, the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is DENIED. The 13 Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment consist with the disposition of this Order and the 14 prior Order at Docket Number 21. 3 15 This Order terminates Docket Number 22. A 16 IT Is SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: May 28, 2021 18 Loon Hag trffbees, YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28