Eskenasy v. LinkedIn Corporation
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:26-cv-06047
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 9
In Eskenasy v. LinkedIn Corporation, Magistrate Judge DeMarchi recommends dismissing the amended complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Pro se plaintiffs who sue social media or technology companies in federal court over account restrictions or complaint-handling processes, particularly those relying on subjective valuations to meet the $75,000 threshold for federal diversity jurisdiction.
What happened
In Eskenasy v. LinkedIn Corporation, Michael Eskenasy, representing himself, sued LinkedIn over two complaints: that LinkedIn restricted his account access without adequate explanation or recovery process, and that LinkedIn's system for handling his report about another user's content was deficient. He filed his lawsuit in federal court claiming the two sides are citizens of different states and the dispute is worth more than $75,000, which is required for a federal court to hear the case.
The magistrate judge found that Eskenasy's amended complaint failed on two grounds. First, his claim that the case is worth more than $75,000 rested entirely on his own subjective valuation of getting his LinkedIn account restored — not on any concrete facts — which is not enough to establish federal court authority over the case. Second, even looking past the jurisdiction problem, neither of his two claims (breach of contract and breach of the implied duty to act in good faith) held up: he failed to point to any specific provision of LinkedIn's User Agreement that LinkedIn actually violated, and LinkedIn's agreement gave it broad rights to change or suspend services.
Magistrate Judge DeMarchi recommended that the case be dismissed without giving Eskenasy another chance to amend, concluding there are no additional facts he could plausibly add to fix the identified problems. The dismissal is recommended without prejudice to Eskenasy filing an appropriate case in state court. Because not all parties agreed to have a magistrate judge handle the case, it is being reassigned to a district judge, who will decide whether to adopt the recommendation. Any party has 14 days to file objections.
The detailed version
- Eskenasy v. LinkedIn Corporation · No. 5:26-cv-06047
- Virginia Demarchi
- Sept. 3, 2026
Background
Michael Eskenasy, proceeding without a lawyer (pro se) and with permission to proceed without paying filing fees (in forma pauperis, or IFP), filed suit against LinkedIn Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, and 25 unnamed "Doe" defendants on June 18, 2026. His original complaint asserted state law claims but failed to establish a basis for federal court jurisdiction or any cognizable claim for relief. On July 8, 2026, the court granted IFP status but dismissed the complaint and gave Eskenasy one opportunity to amend.
On August 26, 2026, Eskenasy filed an amended complaint dropping Microsoft and the Doe defendants and asserting two claims against LinkedIn only: (1) breach of contract and (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Factual Allegations
Eskenasy describes himself as the founder of "ChefreyOS," which he characterizes as a form of "Human Cognitive Infrastructure." He alleges that in May 2026 he observed LinkedIn content posted by a member named Ljubica Maric that he believed related to his ChefreyOS concepts. He reported that content to LinkedIn on May 27 and May 31, 2026. A LinkedIn support consultant responded on June 3, 2026, requesting website links to the reported profile and content. Eskenasy responded that he could not access those links because the reported member and associated users had blocked him. LinkedIn told him it could not investigate further without those links.
On June 11, 2026, Eskenasy encountered what he describes as a "security gate" when trying to log in to his account. LinkedIn required him to undergo identity verification, which he says repeatedly failed technically. As of the amended complaint, he states he has not regained ordinary access to his account and does not know its current status — whether temporarily restricted, permanently restricted, terminated, or otherwise.
Eskenasy expressly disclaims that LinkedIn intentionally suppressed his account or acted in bad faith. His theory is narrower: that LinkedIn failed to provide a functioning complaint and account-recovery process.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Analysis
Eskenasy invoked federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which requires (1) complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and (2) an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
The court found that Eskenasy plausibly alleged citizenship diversity — he is alleged to be a citizen of Idaho, and LinkedIn is alleged to be a citizen of Delaware and California.
However, the court found the amount-in-controversy requirement was not adequately pleaded. Eskenasy argued that the value of restoring his LinkedIn account and its associated professional-identity functions exceeded $75,000. The court concluded this valuation rested entirely on Eskenasy's own subjective assessment of his account's worth, without any factual basis from which the court could independently infer the threshold was met. The court cited analogous cases finding similar speculative valuations insufficient, including a prior Northern District of California case involving a demand for Google account reinstatement.
Failure to State a Claim
Although dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was the primary ground, the court also analyzed the merits claims to inform whether leave to amend was warranted.
Breach of Contract
Under California law, a breach of contract claim requires: (1) a contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) resulting damages.
Eskenasy alleged LinkedIn's User Agreement formed the contract. He asserted LinkedIn breached two provisions:
Section 5 (termination with notice)
Eskenasy argued LinkedIn terminated or suspended his account without proper notice. The court found this claim failed because Eskenasy did not allege termination without notice — to the contrary, the amended complaint acknowledged LinkedIn displayed a "temporary account restriction" message. As to the suspension, the court noted that the User Agreement's Section 3.2 — as acknowledged by Eskenasy himself — gave LinkedIn broad rights to change, suspend, or discontinue services without promising any appeal or dispute process for suspensions. Eskenasy identified no contract provision promising such a process.
Section 9 (complaint policy and process)
Eskenasy argued LinkedIn's complaint process was not "functional" because it required website links he could not provide due to being blocked. The court found that the User Agreement's Section 9 promises only that LinkedIn will have a policy and process for complaints — not that it will accept complaints without URLs, offer alternative identification methods, or pursue any particular form of investigation. Eskenasy could not identify a specific provision of the agreement that LinkedIn had violated. The court cited several analogous dismissals of breach of contract claims against social media companies for similar failures.
Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Under California law, every contract includes an implied obligation that neither party will act to deprive the other of the agreement's benefits. However, the implied covenant cannot impose obligations beyond what the contract itself contemplates, and claims that merely restate a failed breach-of-contract claim on the same facts may be dismissed as superfluous.
Eskenasy's implied covenant claim rested on the same allegations as his breach of contract claim — that LinkedIn failed to provide a functioning recovery or redress path for account restrictions and that its complaint process was inadequate. Because the court found no contractual basis for those obligations in the first place, no implied duty could fill that gap. The claim was dismissed on this basis.
Disposition and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge DeMarchi recommended that the amended complaint be dismissed without further leave to amend. The court found no basis to conclude that additional facts could be pleaded to cure the identified jurisdictional or substantive deficiencies. The recommended dismissal is without prejudice to Eskenasy filing an appropriate complaint in state court.
Because not all parties consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the magistrate judge ordered the case reassigned to a district judge, who will decide whether to adopt the report and recommendation. Any party may file objections within 14 days of being served.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.