Taiming Zhang v. Twitter, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 10, 2025
• Docket: 23-16125
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 10 2025 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TAIMING ZHANG, No. 23-16125

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:23-cv-00980-JSC

v. MEMORANDUM* TWITTER, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jacqueline Scott Corley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 10, 2025**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Taiming Zhang appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of his

action against X Corp.1 arising from X Corp.’s suspension of his account and its

failure to suspend the account of another user. Reviewing de novo, we affirm.2

The district court correctly found that Zhang failed to plead the required

elements of each of his claims, specifically: (1) breach of contract,3 (2) fraud,4 (3)

intentional infliction of emotional distress,5 (4) assault,6 (5) defamation,7 (6)

intrusion of privacy,8 (7) criminal claims,9 and (8) California Unfair Competition

Law claim.10 We therefore uphold the district court’s dismissal of all Zhang’s

1 X Corp. is the successor-in-interest to Twitter, Inc. 2 See Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Grp., Inc., 934 F.3d 1093, 1096 (9th Cir. 2019) 3 See Reichert v. Gen. Ins. Co. of Am., 442 P.2d 377, 381 (Cal. 1968). 4 See Engalla v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc., 938 P.2d 903, 917 (Cal. 1997). 5 See Trerice v. Blue Cross of Cal., 257 Cal. Rptr. 338, 340 (Ct. App. 1989). 6 See So v. Shin, 151 Cal. Rptr. 3d 257, 269 (Ct. App. 2013). 7 See Taus v. Loftus, 151 P.3d 1185, 1209 (Cal. 2007). 8 See Shulman v. Grp. W Prods., Inc., 955 P.2d 469, 489–90 (Cal. 1998). 9 See 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a); Cent. Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164, 190–91, 114 S. Ct. 1439, 1455, 128 L. Ed. 2d 119 (1994); see also 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252, 2252A, 2257. 10 See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Ct., 246 P.3d 877, 844–85 (Cal. 2011).

2 23-16125 claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We need not and do not consider the district

court’s alternative ground for dismissal. See City & County of San Francisco v.

Barr, 965 F.3d 753, 761 (9th Cir. 2020); see also 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1); Calise v.

Meta Platforms, Inc., 103 F.4th 732, 740, 742 (9th Cir. 2024).

Reviewing for abuse of discretion, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of

Zhang’s claims with prejudice.11 The district court determined that any

amendment to Zhang’s first amended complaint would be futile. See Foman v.

Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 230, 9 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1962). Upon our de

novo review, we agree that none of Zhang’s claims could be saved by amendment.

See Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing this action

with prejudice.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

11 See Gompper v. VISX, Inc., 298 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 2002).

3 23-16125