Another Attempt To Tie Twitter To Terrorist Acts And Another Dismissal With Prejudice

from the Definition-Of-Insanity,-PLLC dept

“A series of lawsuits,” the court calls it. This is the ongoing work of 1-800-LAW-FIRM and Excolo Law — two firms that specialize in bringing losing lawsuits to federal courts. It’s a series of lawsuits and a series of losses. An unbroken string of dismissals at both the district and appellate levels — all in response to the firms’ attempts to hold social media companies responsible for the acts of terrorists.

Mandy Palmucci — a victim of the terrorist attacks in Paris, France — filed an incredibly long lawsuit (121 pages!) last year with the assistance of these two law firms. She needn’t have bothered. This one joins the pile of rejected complaints passing through the federal court system. (h/t John Roddy)

The only thing notable about this latest loss is how irritated Judge William H. Orrick seems to be with these lawsuits that keep landing in his court. Handling one of these lawsuits twice appears to have dug deep into Judge Orrick’s reserves of patience. From the decision [PDF]:

In two decisions – Fields v. Twitter, Inc., 217 F. Supp. 3d 1116 (N.D. Cal. 2016) and Fields v. Twitter, Inc., 200 F. Supp. 3d 964 (N.D. Cal. 2016) – I concluded that surviving family members of government contractors killed by an ISIS-identified terrorist could not pursue claims for direct liability under the ATA (or related state law claims) because there was no proximate cause “between Twitter’s provision of accounts to ISIS and the deaths of” plaintiffs’ family members. Id. at 1127. I also held that Twitter was immune from liability for its provision of services to users (even terrorist users) under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)).

The judge points out the Appeals Court reached the same conclusions, but more expeditiously. It decided the plaintiffs’ “proximate cause” claims were so weak it didn’t even need to discuss Section 230 immunity.

Then the judge sends a not-too-subtle message to the law firms pushing these baseless lawsuits

Following the Fields decisions, materially similar direct liability claims have been rejected by numerous judges in this District and elsewhere. See Clayborn v. Twitter, Inc., 17-CV-06894- LB, 2018 WL 6839754 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2018); Copeland v. Twitter, Inc., 352 F. Supp. 3d 965, 17-CV-5851-WHO (N.D. Cal. 2018); Taamneh v. Twitter, Inc., 343 F. Supp. 3d 904, 17-CV04107-EMC (N.D. Cal. 2018); Cain v. Twitter Inc., 17-CV-02506-JD, 2018 WL 4657275 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2018); Gonzalez v. Google, Inc., 335 F. Supp. 3d 1156, 16-CV-03282-DMR (N.D. Cal. 2018) (Gonzalez II); Gonzalez v. Google, Inc., 282 F. Supp. 3d 1150 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2017) (Gonzalez I); Pennie v. Twitter, Inc., 281 F. Supp. 3d 874, 17-CV-00230-JCS (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2017); see also Crosby v. Twitter, Inc., 303 F. Supp. 3d 564 (E.D. Mich. March 30, 2018).

Given the short and whatever’s the opposite of “illustrious” history of these lawsuits, the judge asked the plaintiff why he should be bothered to allow the case to proceed.

In light of the similarities between Palmucci’s theories of liability and factual allegations here and those in Copeland et al v. Twitter, Inc. et al., No. 17-CV-05851-WHO and Fields v. Twitter, No. 16-CV-0213-WHO, I issued an Order on November 30, 2018, requiring plaintiff to “file a supplemental brief not exceeding five pages identifying what material facts differentiate this case from the facts pleaded in Copeland, Fields” and two other decisions from this District, Cain v. Twitter Inc., No. 17-CV-02506-JD and Gonzalez v. Google, Inc., 16-CV-03282-DMR.

And received, “Ummmmmm… because?” for a reply:

Palmucci was given an opportunity to explain why – in light of the caselaw identified above – her case should continue. She declined, essentially admitting that no additional facts could be alleged that might state her claims under the ATA or state law.

Dismissed with prejudice. That means there will be no re-filing of this lawsuit. Just the inevitable appeal — one that will be headed to an appeals court that’s already found these lawsuits baseless. Another rejection awaits, and a bit more of the courts’ time will be wasted by a couple of opportunistic law firms that have discovered a way to make money without actually being of any use to their clients.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: 1-800-law-firm, excolo law, twitter

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Another Attempt To Tie Twitter To Terrorist Acts And Another Dismissal With Prejudice”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
23 Comments
That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I have very little faith in that happening…

Look how long Prenda was able to carry on, even when it was clear to everyone else they were scammers Judges still took their cases and treated them like they hadn’t pulled fast ones before.

IIRC the words of Judge Wright were still being passed around when Judge Howell decided that suddenly a case involving joinder issues & if her court was even the right place could carry on & authorized thousands of names be turned over.

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Illustrious antonym

This wasn’t sarcasm, it was a movie quote.

But to the point of sarcasm: I’ve seen people try to argue with the guy talking about "delicious, delicious paint chips." The other day somebody tried to argue with somebody who said he’d be happy to pay $150 a month for YouTube because "think of the children." At some point, it’s not the fault of the poster for not making the sarcasm obvious enough, it’s the fault of the reader for not being able to pick up on incredibly obvious sarcasm.

John Roddy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The losses are effectively written into law at this point since multiple circuit appeals court have published opinions on them. Those losses are binding case law, and each one makes the next case exponentially harder. Even if they got a victory, it’s virtually guaranteed to be overturned on appeal.

Precedent is already established against them, and they’re everything to blame for that.

John Roddy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

And for any other type of company, it might stand a chance of working. However, the law is quite clearly on the side of the social media companies here, and they’ve demonstrated quite thoroughly that they have no problem fighting the lawsuits as far up the chain as they need to. There hasn’t been any remote possibility of a "settlement payday" in years.

OA (profile) says:

Try, try again

In past situations, I’ve had different suspicions about the motivations for seemingly frivolous litigation. Courts often act as a single point of failure. Bombard courts with similar suits and find a weak spot, a way to tailor suits to get past the rejections or even adjust the court’s POV or posture on a subject matter. Like a body of water slowly eroding a natural dam, I imagine it has happened in other situations.

John85851 (profile) says:

Sanction these lawyers

I’ve said it before with stories like this and I’ll said it again:

The lawyers filing this case either:
1) Don’t know the law saying Twitter can’t be held responsible for user content.
2) Does know, but chooses to ignore previous case law and bill the client.

Either way, these lawyers should start getting some kind of sanctions thrown at them. Disbarment may be too strict, but how about a mark on their record to show other judges that the law firm can’t be trusted to follow the law.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...