NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 2 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 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.

2 18-17327 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

1 The names used by the parties in their filings are retained here, although the court acknowledges that Twitter, Inc. has merged into X Corp. and Facebook, Inc. is known as Meta Platforms, Inc. Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471, 479 n.3 (2023). 2 See Copeland v. Twitter, Inc., 352 F. Supp. 3d 965, 975–76 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (applying Halberstam’s framework); Sinclair ex rel. Tucker v. Twitter, Inc., No. C 17-5710 SBA, 2019 WL 10252752, at *5–6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2019) (same); Palmucci v. Twitter Inc., No. 18-cv-03947-WHO, 2019 WL 1676079, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2019) (“[Appellant Palmucci] was given an opportunity to explain why – in light of the caselaw identified above – her case should continue. She declined, essentially admitting that no additional facts could be alleged that might state her claims under the ATA or state law.” (noting reliance on analysis from Copeland and Fields v. Twitter, Inc., 881 F.3d 739 (9th Cir. 2018))).

3 18-17327 proffer no arguments that any of the district courts either erred in dismissing claims

or abused its discretion in denying leave to amend.

AFFIRMED.

4 18-17327