Friend v. Google LLC

Background

Donald Friend, who represented himself, sued Google LLC over allegedly fraudulent business listings that allegedly persisted on Google’s platform and harmed a contractual arrangement between Friend and non-party Dumpsters Direct LLC. In an earlier order, the Court dismissed Friend’s Third Amended Complaint without leave to amend and entered judgment. The Court concluded that Friend lacked prudential standing, meaning he was not the proper person to pursue an injury that was derivative of an injury to Dumpsters Direct, and Article III standing, meaning he had not adequately shown that Google caused his injury. The Court also concluded that Friend could not fix those problems through an amended pleading without fundamentally changing his allegations.

Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment

Friend moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment. The Court explained that this remedy is generally available to correct a clear legal or factual error, consider newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, prevent a clear injustice, or account for an intervening change in controlling law. The Court rejected each of Friend’s four asserted justifications.

First, the Court rejected Friend’s reliance on the fact that the case was dismissed before discovery, his claim that the standing issues were novel, and his argument that dismissal without leave to amend effectively protected Google from liability. The Court stated that courts routinely dismiss cases at the pleading stage and that the prior order only determined that Friend was not the proper plaintiff to pursue the potential claims.

Second, the Court rejected Friend’s arguments that it had misunderstood whether he was an investor, creditor, or independent contractor of Dumpsters Direct and had misapplied Delaware law concerning direct and derivative claims. The Court stated that, under Friend’s allegations, his injury depended on an injury to Dumpsters Direct and therefore remained derivative regardless of how his relationship with that company was characterized. The Court also concluded that Friend was not suing Google to enforce a contract to which he was a party: he alleged a breach involving a contract between Dumpsters Direct and Google, while his own contract was with Dumpsters Direct.

Third, the Court declined to resolve Friend’s argument that Google’s allegations in another case conflicted with the Court’s Article III standing analysis. The Court stated that even if Friend were correct on that issue, the judgment would not change because the lack of prudential standing independently supported dismissal without leave to amend.

Fourth, the Court rejected Friend’s argument that the Court had implicitly erred in denying leave to amend. The Court stated that this argument repeated the points it had already rejected.

Admonishment Regarding Court Filings

The Court identified at least five instances in which Friend appeared to have fabricated quotations from cited authorities. The Court described incorrect or unsupported quotations and citation information involving several decisions, including cases identified in the opinion as Broam v. Bogan, United States v. NH, Inc., NAF Holdings, LLC v. Li & Fung (Trading) Ltd., Shell Petroleum, N.V. v. Graves, and Pareto v. FDIC. The Court strongly admonished Friend and reminded him that all parties, including self-represented parties, must act truthfully before the Court.

Disposition

The Court DENIED Friend’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. The opinion does not alter the earlier dismissal without leave to amend. This order is classified as a procedural order because it resolves a motion seeking to change an earlier judgment and does not decide the underlying claims against Google on their merits.