Rutenburg v. Twitter, Inc. et al

Filing 11

ORDER: 1) DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT EX PARTE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ;denying #9 Motion for TRO; denying #10 Ex Parte Application ; denying as moot #10 Motion to Shorten Time. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2021)

Case 4:21-cv-00548-YGR Document 11 Filed 01/28/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARIA RUTENBURG,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 4:21-cv-00548-YGR

v.
TWITTER, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; AND
(2) DENYING AS MOOT EX PARTE MOTION
TO SHORTEN TIME
Re: Dkt. Nos. 9, 10

12
13

Having reviewed the motion for temporary restraining order filed by plaintiff Maria

14

Rutenburg, the motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED. A fundamental flaw in

15

Rutenburg’s entire case is that the claimed rights under the First Amendment (and the corollary

16

claims under the Fourteenth Amendment) cannot be enforced against a private entity such as

17

defendant Twitter, Inc. See Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S.Ct. 1921, 1928

18

(2019) (“The text and original meaning of those Amendments, as well as this Court's longstanding

19

precedents, establish that the Free Speech Clause prohibits only governmental abridgment of

20

speech. The Free Speech Clause does not prohibit private abridgment of speech.” (emphasis in

21

original)); Belgau v. Inslee, 975 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The Supreme Court has long held

22

that ‘merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful,’ falls outside the purview of the

23

Fourteenth Amendment.” (citing Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1002, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 73

24

L.Ed.2d 534 (1982))); Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 877 F.3d 833, 837 (9th Cir. 2017) (“A

25

threshold requirement of any constitutional claim is the presence of state action. . . . Because the

26

First Amendment right to petition is a guarantee only against abridgment by [the] government, . . .

27

state action is a necessary threshold which [a plaintiff] must cross before we can even consider

28

whether [a defendant] infringed upon [a plaintiff’s] First Amendment rights . . . .” (internal

Case 4:21-cv-00548-YGR Document 11 Filed 01/28/21 Page 2 of 2

1

citations and quotation marks omitted)); Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 157 (1978)

2

(“While as a factual matter any person with sufficient physical power may deprive a person of his

3

property, only a State or a private person whose action may be fairly treated as that of the State

4

itself . . . may deprive him of an interest encompassed within the Fourteenth Amendment's

5

protection . . . .” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)). Further, Rutenburg failed to

6

comply with the Court’s local rules and effectuate service, and accordingly, the motion is

7

procedurally defective. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).

8
9

Moreover, in light of the foregoing, Rutenburg’s ex parte motion to shorten the briefing
schedule on the motion for temporary restraining order is DENIED AS MOOT.
This Order terminates Docket Numbers 9 and 10.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: January 28, 2021

13
14
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2