Johnson v. Zuckerberg et al
Filing
15
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin on 10/28/2024. (ads, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
TYLER D. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 23-cv-03910-AMO (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
MARK ZUCKERBERG, et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
Plaintiff Tyler D. Johnson, an inmate in Missouri, filed the present civil rights action
14
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, representing himself. He has been granted leave to proceed in
15
forma pauperis.
16
17
18
19
20
21
On March 13, 2024, the Court conducted an initial screening of the complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and found that
the allegations and prayer for relief in the instant complaint seem to
be a duplicate of those of an existing class action, In re Facebook,
Inc., Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation, Case No. 18-md2843-VC (N.D. Cal.) (“In re Facebook”) (Dkt. 491 at 89-250 of Case
No. 18-md-2843-VC (setting forth factual allegations regarding
violations of data privacy), Dkt. 491 at 89-250 of Case No. 18-md2843-VC 354 ¶ 1383 (seeking damages)).
22
Dkt. 11 at 3. The Court also determined that while Johnson argued in a conclusory fashion that
23
his suit had “nothing to do with the legal claims related to In re Facebook,” see id. (citing Dkt. 5 at
24
4), Johnson’s argument was “unavailing,” especially since his allegations and request for monetary
25
damages were duplicative of those in In re Facebook, see id. Accordingly, the Court concluded
26
that the complaint should be dismissed as duplicative. See id. (citing Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d
27
1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013)). The Court also denied Johnson’s motion for class certification, his
28
“Motion for Approval of Proposed Consent Judgment.” Dkt. 11 at 4-5.
The Court further found that Johnson seemed to meet the criteria of being a class member
1
2
and, as a Missouri resident, a member of the Missouri “subclass” of In re Facebook. See id. at 3-4
3
(citing Dkts. 491 at 252 ¶ 764(a) and 254 ¶ 764(a)(xiv) of Case No. 18-md-2843-VC). The Court
4
pointed out that that case had reached a settlement, see id. at 4 (citing Dkt. 1118 of Case No. 18-
5
md-2843-VC), but that Johnson did not allege he opted out of the settlement, see id. Because
6
Johnsons did not allege he opted out, the Court directed him to “submit any claim for damages to
7
the settlement administrator of In re Facebook, whose contact information is listed in the
8
settlement website: www.FacebookUserPrivacySettlement.com.” Id. The Court added:
9
The settlement website says that anyone can email the settlement
administrator at info@FacebookUserPrivacySettlement.com, call
him/her at 1-855-556-2233, or mail any inquiries to Facebook
Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation, c/o Settlement
Administrator, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
Id.
The Court further instructed Johnson that if he wished to seek other forms of equitable
14
relief, then he must do so by urging further action through the class representative and class
15
counsel, or by intervention in the class action, not by filing a separate, individual case. Id. (citing
16
Gillespie v. Crawford, 858 F.2d 1101, 1103 (5th Cir. 1988) (en banc))). Finally, because it was
17
possible that Johnson could have opted out of the settlement agreement, the Court concluded that
18
“the instant dismissal [was] with leave to amend, and Johnson will need to allege that he opted out
19
of the class action settlement in an amended complaint . . . .” Id. The Court granted Johnson
20
twenty-eight days to file an amended complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies, or to suffer
21
dismissal of the action. Id. at 10-11.
22
Johnson subsequently filed an amended complaint. Dkt. 12. Johnson names similar
23
defendants and makes similar allegations as in his original complaint. Compare Dkt. 1 with Dkt.
24
12. He also attempts to name multiple plaintiffs, but, as mentioned, the Court has previously
25
denied Johnson’s motion for class certification. See Dkt. 11 at 4-5.
26
The Court has reviewed Johnson’s amended complaint and finds that it does not cure the
27
pleading deficiencies identified in the Court’s Order dismissing the original complaint with leave
28
to amend. For example, Johnson has not indicated whether he opted out of the settlement
2
1
agreement even though he was instructed to do so. See Dkt. 12. Also, Johnson does not make any
2
further arguments as to whether or not his legal claims are related to those in In re Facebook.
3
Accordingly, Johnson’s claims are DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE.
4
The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions and close the file.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
Dated: October 28, 2024
7
8
ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN
United States District Judge
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?