Holmes v. Chen
- Jon Tigar
- 4:24-cv-00115
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Holmes v. Chen, Judge Tigar dismissed all claims with prejudice, vacated YouTube’s default, and denied Holmes’s remaining motions.
The ruling dismissed Kiara Holmes’s claims against all defendants with prejudice. It vacated YouTube’s entry of default, allowed the appearing defendants to avoid default judgment, and denied Holmes’s motions for default judgment, reconsideration, and disclosures.
What happened
In Holmes v. Chen, Kiara Holmes sued Google, YouTube, Alphabet, Shawn Carter, and other defendants. Her allegations included claims that she helped create Google and YouTube, was owed ownership and payments, and was harmed by alleged celebrity misconduct and videos on YouTube.
The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss because Holmes did not state a legally sufficient claim and her allegations were implausible. The court also dismissed the claims against defendants who had not appeared, and it said amendment would be futile, so the dismissals were with prejudice.
Judge Jon S. Tigar granted YouTube’s motion to vacate its entry of default, denied Holmes’s motion for default judgment and motions to reconsider denial of default, and denied her motion for disclosures as moot.
The detailed version
- Holmes v. Chen · No. 4:24-cv-00115
- Jon Tigar
- June 24, 2024
Background
Kiara Holmes filed the case in the Eastern District of California on January 2, 2024. The case was transferred to the Northern District of California three days later. The defendants are Google, YouTube, Alphabet, Monica Arnold, Shawn Carter, Larry Page, Jawed Karim, Chad Hurley, and Steve Chen. Only Google, YouTube, Alphabet, and Carter had appeared.
The court said the complaint’s allegations were difficult to discern. Holmes appeared to claim that she was the legal “Queen of Dubai,” had been a childhood trillionaire whose fortunes were stolen, offered the idea for Google and YouTube to their founders, and was owed royalties, shares, ownership, and annual payments. She also alleged that YouTube and Alphabet were responsible for or failed to monitor videos containing criminal conduct, and sought damages from the defendants.
YouTube’s Default
YouTube moved to vacate the entry of default entered against it on March 15, 2024. It argued that it had not been properly served and, alternatively, that good cause supported setting aside the default. The court found that the documents served on YouTube included only part of the complaint and omitted the attachment form. Because an incomplete complaint is not proper service, the court granted YouTube’s motion to vacate the entry of default.
Because YouTube had appeared and indicated that it intended to seek dismissal, the court denied Holmes’s motion for default judgment.
Motions to Dismiss
Google, YouTube, Alphabet, and Shawn Carter moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a claim for relief. The court also applied Rule 8, which requires a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. It found that Holmes failed to state any cause of action and that her factual allegations were untethered from reality. The court therefore granted the motions to dismiss filed by Google, YouTube, Alphabet, and Carter.
The court also dismissed the claims against Steve Chen, Chad Hurley, Jawed Karim, and Larry Page, even though they had not appeared, because it found that all defendants were similarly situated and that Holmes failed to state a claim against any defendant. The court concluded that amendment would be futile and dismissed Holmes’s claims against all defendants with prejudice.
Other Motions
The court denied Holmes’s two motions to reconsider the denial of default. It also treated her filing of initial disclosures as a motion for disclosures and denied that motion as moot, explaining that discovery matters generally should be handled between the parties unless court intervention is needed.
Disposition
The court granted YouTube’s motion to vacate the entry of default; granted the motions to dismiss filed by Google, YouTube, Alphabet, and Shawn Carter; and applied the dismissal to the other defendants who had not appeared. It denied Holmes’s motion for default judgment, motions to reconsider denial of default, and motion for disclosures. The order was signed by United States District Judge Jon S. Tigar and dated June 24, 2024.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.