Rutenburg v. Twitter, Inc.

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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 10 TWITTER, INC., Re: Dkt. Nos. 11, 15 Defendant.

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 dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (See Dkt. No. 11 at 1 (“A fundamental flaw in Rutenburg’s entire case is that the claimed rights under the First Amendment (and the corollary claims under the Fourteenth Amendment) cannot be enforced against a private entity such as defendant Twitter, Inc.” (citing Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S.Ct. 1921, 1928 (2019) (“The text and original meaning of those Amendments, as well as this Court's longstanding precedents, establish that the Free Speech Clause prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech. The Free Speech Clause does not prohibit private abridgment of speech.” (emphasis in original)); Belgau v. Inslee, 975 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The Supreme Court has long held that ‘merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful,’ falls outside the purview of the 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 threshold requirement of any constitutional claim is the presence of state action. . . . Because the 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 citations and quotation marks omitted)); Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 157 (1978) (“While as a factual matter any person with sufficient physical power may deprive a person of his || property, only a State or a private person whose action may be fairly treated as that of the State itself... may deprive him of an interest encompassed within the Fourteenth Amendment's protection ....” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)))).) A response to this Order to Show Cause shall be filed from Rutenburg on or before February 24, 2021. Defendant Twitter Inc. shall file a response to Ruenburg’s response on or before March 10, 2021. Rutenburg is || 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 || 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