Brickman v. Facebook, Inc.

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 COLIN R. BRICKMAN, Case No. 16-cv-00751-WHO 8 Plaintiff,

ORDER RE JUDGMENT

9 Vv.

FACEBOOK, INC., ll Defendant.

12 I have reviewed the Joint Report On Meet-And-Confer Efforts (Dkt. No. 153) following || my September 15, 2021 order denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended |} complaint (Dkt. No. 152). In that order, I assumed the truth of the existing allegations in || plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and the additional allegations in his proposed Second a 16 || 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 plaintiffs 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. | .

Dated: September 23, 2021 4 C0 Mm. Ortick United States District Judge