Doe v. YouTube, Inc.

Filing 32

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 16 Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend. Amended Pleadings due by 8/13/2021. Response due by 9/3/2021. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2021)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 JANE DOE, Plaintiff, 6 7 8 9 CASE NO. 20-cv-07493-YGR vs. YOUTUBE INC., ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Re: Dkt. No. 16 Defendant. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 On September 21, 2020, plaintiff filed this putative class action against defendant 12 YouTube LLC (incorrectly sued as YouTube Inc.) in San Mateo County Superior Court. 13 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. (Dkt. No. 16.) Having carefully considered 14 the briefing and arguments submitted on the motion, and for the reasons stated on the record at the 15 July 13, 2021 hearing, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as the 16 complaint, at a minimum, requires additional allegations given the novel theories. 17 First, with respect to the strict liability claim, plaintiff does not oppose the motion. 18 Second, with respect to the negligence claims, plaintiff has not sufficiently explained what role, if 19 any (or lack thereof), her employer Collabera had over her work relative to YouTube. Without 20 additional allegations, the Court cannot discern whether a claim is plausibly stated. Third, with 21 respect to the UCL claims, plaintiff has not alleged the relevant conduct in California justifying 22 extraterritorial application of the UCL. See Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 51 Cal. 4th 1191, 1207 23 (2011) (“[T]he presumption against extraterritoriality applies to the UCL in full force.”). 24 Moreover, plaintiff, as a former content moderator, lacks standing to seek relief in the form of 25 YouTube’s implementation of safety guidelines. See Walsh v. Nev. Dep’t of Hum. Res., 471 F.3d 26 1033, 1037 (concluding that plaintiff requesting an injunction requiring her former employer to 27 adopt and enforce lawful policies “lacked standing to sue for injunctive relief from which she 28 would not likely benefit”). As to the requested medical monitoring program, plaintiff has failed to 1 sufficiently plead the inadequacy of legal remedies necessary to state a claim for such relief under 2 the UCL. See Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834, 844 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that 3 plaintiff failed to state UCL claim where complaint “fail[ed] to explain” how the sum “requested 4 in damages to compensate her for the same past harm” was “inadequate or incomplete”). 5 Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff shall file an 6 amended complaint no later than 30 days from the date of this Order. Defendant shall file a 7 response 21 days after filing. Should defendant file a renewed motion to dismiss, it may not raise 8 new issues which could have been raised in the instant motion. 9 10 This Order terminates Docket Number 16. IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Dated: July 14, 2021 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?