Elbaum v. Google, Inc.
- Kandis Westmore
- 4:24-cv-02294
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Elbaum v. Google, Inc., Judge Westmore granted Google’s motion to dismiss Saul Elbaum’s contract case with prejudice because he failed to state a claim.
Saul Elbaum’s breach-of-contract case against Google, Inc. was dismissed with prejudice; Google prevailed on its motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Elbaum v. Google, Inc., Saul Elbaum alleged that Google withdrew money from his bank account for advertising without notifying him of each withdrawal. He sought actual and punitive damages.
Elbaum alleged that Google withdrew $8,500 in 2016 and 2017 and another $2,000 in 2021. He claimed these withdrawals breached a contract, but he did not identify a contract provision requiring notice of each withdrawal.
Judge Westmore ruled that Elbaum had not stated a breach-of-contract claim and that his claims concerning the 2016 and 2017 withdrawals were time-barred. The court granted Google’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the case with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Elbaum v. Google, Inc. · No. 4:24-cv-02294
- Kandis Westmore
- Sept. 13, 2024
Background
Saul Elbaum sued Google, Inc., alleging breach of contract based on Google’s withdrawal of money from his bank account without notice of each withdrawal. The case was filed in the District of Maryland and later transferred to the Northern District of California.
Elbaum alleged that Google withdrew $500 from his account each time it ran his advertisement between October 3, 2016, and February 7, 2017. He alleged that Google ultimately withdrew $8,500 during that period. He also alleged that Google later began running an incomplete advertisement and withdrew $2,000 between April 24, 2021, and September 24, 2021. He sought $10,500 in actual damages and $1.21 billion in punitive damages.
Google moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Google argued that Elbaum had waived his claims, that he failed to state a claim based on the alleged withdrawals, and that his claims concerning the 2016 and 2017 withdrawals were barred by the statute of limitations.
Court’s analysis
The court treated Elbaum’s allegations as a breach-of-contract claim. It explained that such a claim requires a contract, the plaintiff’s performance or legally excused nonperformance, the defendant’s breach, and resulting damages.
The court held that dismissal with prejudice was warranted because Elbaum did not identify a specific contract provision requiring Google to provide notice of each bank-account withdrawal. The court stated that Elbaum did not dispute that the applicable contract contained no notice requirement and that, at the hearing, he acknowledged there was no contract term at issue. The court concluded that alleging the requested notice was feasible did not establish a breach of contract.
The court also held that Elbaum’s claims concerning the 2016 and 2017 withdrawals were time-barred. It stated that a contract claim must generally be filed within four years after accrual and that the case was not filed until September 2023.
Because it found that dismissal with prejudice was warranted on these grounds, the court did not consider Google’s waiver argument. The court also noted that Elbaum said at the hearing that he did not want permission to amend his complaint.
Disposition
The court found that Elbaum had not stated a claim, granted Google’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.