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)

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