Lloyd v. Facebook, Inc.

Background

The court had previously granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Susan Lloyd’s remaining breach-of-contract claim. The dismissal was with prejudice because Lloyd had already been given an opportunity to amend her complaint but had not corrected the identified deficiency. The court also directed entry of a final judgment in the defendants’ favor.

After that order, Lloyd filed a motion asking the court to reconsider. She attached a proposed fourth amended complaint. The court treated the filing as a request for relief from the judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and/or 60. Those rules can provide relief for a manifest error of law or fact, or to prevent manifest injustice.

Arguments and analysis

Lloyd argued that she had not been allowed to take discovery and therefore could not obtain copies of the contracts she had with Facebook. The court rejected that argument, explaining that a plaintiff may not use discovery to show that a deficient complaint states a viable claim. The court also clarified that it had not ruled that Lloyd failed to allege the existence of a contract. Instead, the earlier ruling found that she had failed to identify any specific contract provision or promise that Facebook breached.

Lloyd also argued that she should receive another opportunity to amend. The court found that she had not explained why another opportunity was warranted after she had already been given one. The court nevertheless reviewed the proposed fourth amended complaint on its merits and found it deficient for the same reasons as before: it did not identify a sufficiently clear and defined contractual promise. The court distinguished such a promise from broad or vague corporate policy statements.

Ruling

The court denied Lloyd’s motion for relief from the judgment. The order states that it disposes of Docket No. 69. The underlying breach-of-contract claim therefore remained dismissed with prejudice under the court’s prior order.