Wescott v. Google, LLC

Background

Carl A. Wescott, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Google, LLC. The complaint invoked federal diversity jurisdiction and alleged that at least 27 Gmail accounts had been hijacked since 2019. Wescott alleged that he could not recover the accounts despite contacting Google customer service and support, and that he lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in business opportunities.

Wescott asserted one claim for negligence. He alleged that Google owed him legal duties as a customer, that Google employees failed to help him recover the accounts, and that this conduct caused financial harm. He sought, among other relief, a declaration that he owned the accounts, an order requiring Google to return them, damages, and compensation for his time and future legal expenses.

Screening analysis

Because Wescott had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal if an eligible complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant immune from such relief.

The court determined that the complaint was neither frivolous nor malicious. It found that the allegations had a sufficient basis in law and fact and found no indication that Wescott filed the case with an intent to harm Google.

The court nevertheless held that the negligence claim failed to state a claim. Under California law, negligence requires a legal duty, a breach of that duty, and a causal connection between the breach and the injury. The court found that Wescott did not provide facts identifying the source, scope, or nature of any duty Google owed him. It also found that he did not provide specific facts explaining what Google or its employees did or failed to do, or how that conduct caused his alleged losses. The court therefore dismissed the complaint under the failure-to-state-a-claim provision of the screening statute.

The court separately found that Google was not immune from monetary relief. It also noted that the dismissal under the screening statute was not a decision on the merits and that Wescott could file the same complaint by paying the filing fee.

Order

The court DISMISSED the complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim for relief. It GRANTED Wescott LEAVE to file an amended complaint addressing the identified problems by September 16, 2024. It DENIED AS MOOT Wescott’s motion requesting service of process. The court stated that failure to amend by the deadline, or inability to correct the deficiencies, could lead to a recommendation that the action be dismissed in whole or in part.