Kimberly Copeland v. Twitter, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 2 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KIMBERLY COPELAND, individually and No. 18-17327 on behalf of the Estate of Sean Copeland and the Estate of Brodie Copeland, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-05851-WHO

Plaintiff-Appellant,

MEMORANDUM* v. TWITTER, INC.; FACEBOOK, INC.; GOOGLE, LLC,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Horsley Orrick, District Judge, Presiding

DANELLE SINCLAIR, as Guardian Ad No. 19-15625 Litem for A. Tucker and O. Tucker; ISABELLA TUCKER, D.C. No. 4:17-cv-05710-SBA

Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TWITTER, INC.; GOOGLE, LLC; FACEBOOK, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding

MANDY PALMUCCI, No. 19-15937

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:18-cv-03947-WHO v. TWITTER, INC.; GOOGLE, LLC; FACEBOOK, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Horsley Orrick, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 29, 2024** San Francisco, California

Before: PAEZ, WALLACH,*** and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated appeals, Kimberly Copeland, Danielle Sinclair, Isabella Tucker, and Mandy Palmucci (collectively “Plaintiffs-Appellants”) appeal the district courts’ dismissals of their actions against Twitter, Inc., Google LLC,

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

***

The Honorable Evan J. Wallach, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. and Facebook, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants-Appellees”1). Plaintiffs-Appellants seek remands to amend their respective operative complaints in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 598 U.S. 617 (2023) (per curiam), and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471 (2023). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The court concludes de novo that amending the operative complaints would be futile. See Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiffs-Appellants fail to allege the third element for aiding and abetting liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2333(d), that Defendants-Appellees “gave such knowing and substantial assistance to ISIS that they culpably participated” in the terrorist acts, Taamneh, 598 U.S. at 497 (applying the legal framework set forth in Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472 (D.C. Cir. 1983)). Each district court properly considered2 this dispositive third element. See id. at 503–07. Plaintiffs-Appellants proffer no arguments that any of the district courts either erred in dismissing claims or abused its discretion in denying leave to amend.

AFFIRMED.