Gonzalez v. Google, Inc.

Background

Plaintiffs Reynaldo Gonzalez; the Estate of Nohemi Gonzalez; Beatriz Gonzalez, individually and as the representative of the Estate; José Hernandez; Rey Gonzalez; and Paul Gonzalez sued Google over Nohemi Gonzalez’s death during a coordinated terrorist attack in Paris in November 2015. Their earlier complaints asserted claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act, including theories that Google aided and abetted or conspired with ISIS and provided material support to terrorists.

The court previously dismissed the operative complaint, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Anti-Terrorism Act claims. The Supreme Court later declined to decide whether the Communications Decency Act barred the claims and stated that it was not resolving whether the plaintiffs should receive another opportunity to amend. After the case returned to the district court, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a fourth amended complaint.

Proposed Amendment and Legal Standard

The proposed fourth amended complaint asserted two new claims. The first was based on Article 1382 of the French Code Civil and alleged that Google was at fault for failing to regulate, control, limit, and remove YouTube content that encouraged terrorist action. The second was a California negligence claim based partly on 18 U.S.C. § 2339A, a federal criminal statute concerning material support and resources to terrorists.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), courts generally should freely allow amendment before trial when justice requires. Leave may be denied for reasons including undue delay, prejudice, repeated failure to correct deficiencies, or futility. An amendment is futile when it could not proceed, including because the court would lack subject-matter jurisdiction.

Federal-Question Jurisdiction

Plaintiffs argued that the proposed negligence claim supported federal-question jurisdiction because it involved an embedded federal issue. The court applied the rule that a state-law claim supports federal-question jurisdiction only when it necessarily raises a stated, actually disputed, and substantial federal issue that a federal court can resolve without disrupting the federal-state balance.

The court held that the proposed negligence claim did not satisfy that test. The federal issue was not necessarily raised because the proposed duty of care rested on both state and federal law, meaning plaintiffs could prevail without relying on federal law. The issue also was not substantial for purposes of federal jurisdiction because whether Google was negligent under the particular facts was fact-bound and situation-specific, rather than a pure legal issue important to the federal system as a whole.

Diversity Jurisdiction

The court also rejected diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires complete diversity of citizenship and more than $75,000 in controversy. The proposed complaint did not identify the states of citizenship of Beatriz Gonzalez and Paul Gonzalez. Plaintiffs later acknowledged that Nohemi Gonzalez was a California citizen when she died, that Beatriz Gonzalez was a California citizen in her capacity as the Estate’s representative, and that Beatriz Gonzalez and Paul Gonzalez were domiciled in California when they were added to the complaint.

Plaintiffs argued that the jurisdictional problem could be cured by dropping the Estate and Beatriz Gonzalez as its representative and then adding certain parties back. The court found that plaintiffs had not shown that the Estate and its representative were dispensable parties. It also held that the proposed changes could not cure the problem created by the parties’ citizenship at the relevant filing time.

Disposition

The court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the proposed fourth amended complaint because the complaint established neither federal-question jurisdiction nor diversity jurisdiction. It therefore found the amendment futile and denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend. The clerk was ordered to enter judgment and close the case.