Idrobo v. Microsoft

Background

Louis Idrobo sued Microsoft and several media companies: the Walt Disney Company, ABC News, Inc., Cable News Network, Inc., and Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. The opinion states that Idrobo was employed by Securitas, whose clients included Microsoft.

Idrobo’s claims against the media defendants concerned their coverage of protests surrounding George Floyd’s death. He appeared to allege that the media defendants distributed intentionally false or misleading information about the protests and racial relations in the United States, causing lost wages and the theft of his cellphone. He asserted claims under the First Amendment, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and New York law. He later withdrew antitrust claims and claims against American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

Idrobo’s claims against Microsoft arose under the New York City Human Rights Law. He appeared to allege that Microsoft adopted a discriminatory hiring policy after George Floyd’s death, ending his relationship with the company.

Motions and Claims Against the Media Defendants

Microsoft, the Walt Disney Company, and ABC News, Inc. filed one motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Cable News Network, Inc. and Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. filed another. The court granted both motions.

The court first addressed Article III standing, which is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a court decision can remedy the injury.

For Idrobo’s First Amendment claim against the media defendants, the court held that he did not allege a sufficiently concrete and particularized injury. Although the Supreme Court has recognized a First Amendment right to receive information and ideas in some circumstances, the court found that Idrobo did not allege a concrete, specific connection to any media defendant. Instead, he said that he was acting to defend the public’s rights and stop a national disaster, which the court treated as a generally available grievance rather than a personal injury.

The court held that Idrobo’s RICO and state-law claims against the media defendants also failed for lack of traceability. Idrobo alleged that the media defendants’ coverage incited riots by third parties, which led to racketeering activity and ultimately caused his lost earnings and cellphone theft. The court found this alleged chain of events indirect, hypothetical, conclusory, and dependent on independent actions by people who were not parties to the case.

The court concluded that Idrobo lacked standing to bring any claims against the media defendants. It dismissed those claims without prejudice because a dismissal for lack of standing is, by definition, without prejudice.

Claims Against Microsoft

Idrobo brought only state-law claims against Microsoft, while alleging federal-question jurisdiction. After dismissing all federal claims, the court considered whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over related state-law claims after the federal claims are gone.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims against Microsoft. It stated that the usual considerations—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state courts—favored declining jurisdiction, particularly because the Microsoft claims arose under different law and involved different allegations from the claims against the media defendants.

The court dismissed Idrobo’s claims against Microsoft but granted him leave to replead those claims. The court gave him one final opportunity because he was representing himself, there was a reasonable chance he could properly allege diversity jurisdiction, and his allegations concerning Microsoft had changed during the motion briefing. Any amended complaint must include all relevant allegations and must be filed within 30 days of the opinion. The court stated that it would not provide further opportunities to amend to address the arguments raised in the motion to dismiss.

Disposition

Judge Furman’s order granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed the operative complaint in its entirety, while allowing Idrobo to replead his claims against Microsoft if he can properly allege diversity jurisdiction. If he does not file an amended complaint within 30 days, the court will enter judgment for the defendants on all claims.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the required fees on appeal. The clerk was directed to terminate the two motions.