Rutenburg v. Twitter, Inc. et al

Filing 16

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION.Plaintiff's Show Cause Response due by 2/24/2021. Responses due by 3/10/2021. Replies due by 3/17/2021. Twitter's response to complaint deadline extended to 5/19/2021. In light of this Order to Show Cause, the parties stipulation as to the briefing schedule of any forthcoming motion for preliminary injunction or motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 15) is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 2/11/2021. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2021)

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 TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER
JURISDICTION
Re: Dkt. Nos. 11, 15

12
13

TO MARIA RUTENBURG AND HER COUNSEL OF RECORD:

14

YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why this case should not be

15

dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (See Dkt. No. 11 at 1 (“A fundamental flaw in

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

protection . . . .” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)))).) A response to this Order to

7

Show Cause shall be filed from Rutenburg on or before February 24, 2021. Defendant Twitter

8

Inc. shall file a response to Ruenburg’s response on or before March 10, 2021. Rutenburg is

9

permitted to file a reply on or before March 17, 2021.
In light of this Order to Show Cause, the parties’ stipulation as to the briefing schedule of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

any forthcoming motion for preliminary injunction or motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 15) is DENIED

12

AS MOOT.

13

the Court EXTENDS Twitter’s response date to the complaint by ninety (90) days to May 19, 2021.

Moreover, based on the foregoing and in the conservation of limited judicial resources,

14

This Order terminates Docket Number 15.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: February 11, 2021

17
18
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2