From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brickman v. Facebook, Inc.

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Sep 23, 2021
16-cv-00751-WHO (N.D. Cal. Sep. 23, 2021)

Opinion

16-cv-00751-WHO

09-23-2021

COLIN R. BRICKMAN, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant.


ORDER RE JUDGMENT

WILLIAM H. ORRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I have reviewed the Joint Report On Meet-And-Confer Efforts (Dkt. No. 153) following my September 15, 2021 order denying plaintiffs motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 152). In that order, I assumed the truth of the existing allegations in plaintiffs First Amended Complaint and the additional allegations in his proposed Second Amended Complaint, and considered the Declaration of Randall A. Snyder (Dkt. No. 133-1). The parties were on notice that I would test plaintiffs existing and proposed allegations regarding defendant's conduct under Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S.Ct. 1163, 1164 (2021). Dkt. No. 132. Having determined that plaintiffs existing and proposed allegations were not sufficient as a matter of law, I denied as futile plaintiffs motion for leave to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 152.

The parties had a full and fair opportunity to present their arguments and have me consider the sufficiency of plaintiff s allegations, including those based on the Snyder declaration. Accordingly, judgment will be entered in favor of defendant. Plaintiffs right to appeal from entry of judgment following the motion denying him leave to amend is fully preserved.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Brickman v. Facebook, Inc.

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Sep 23, 2021
16-cv-00751-WHO (N.D. Cal. Sep. 23, 2021)
Case details for

Brickman v. Facebook, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:COLIN R. BRICKMAN, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Sep 23, 2021

Citations

16-cv-00751-WHO (N.D. Cal. Sep. 23, 2021)