Zimmerman v. Facebook, Inc.
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:19-cv-04591
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Zimmerman v. Facebook, Judge Chhabria denied final judgment, an interlocutory appeal request, reconsideration, and lifting the stay.
Robert Zimmerman and the other plaintiffs, as well as Facebook, Inc. and the other defendants; the order concerned how Zimmerman’s claims would proceed and did not decide their underlying merits.
What happened
In Zimmerman v. Facebook, Robert Zimmerman asked the court to enter final judgment on his account-related claims and allow an immediate appeal. His case also involved privacy-related claims at issue in related multi-district litigation.
The court explained that final judgment on only some claims is generally appropriate when those claims are separate enough to avoid piecemeal litigation. Zimmerman had said he could not reasonably pursue his privacy-related claims separately from his permanent account-revocation claims, and his amended complaint did not distinguish between the two types of claims.
The court denied the motion for final judgment and the request for an interlocutory appeal. It also denied reconsideration because Zimmerman had not obtained the required permission to file the motion and had not identified grounds such as new evidence, new law, clear error, or a change in controlling law. Judge Vince Chhabria similarly denied the request to lift the stay.
The detailed version
- Zimmerman v. Facebook, Inc. · No. 3:19-cv-04591
- Vince Chhabria
- Dec. 10, 2020
Background
Robert Zimmerman and other plaintiffs sued Facebook, Inc., and other defendants. The opinion addresses account-related claims and privacy-related claims. The privacy-related claims were at issue in related multi-district litigation. The court had previously given Zimmerman an opportunity to pursue the account-related claims separately from the privacy-related claims, but Zimmerman’s amended complaint did not distinguish between them.
Motion for Final Judgment and Interlocutory Appeal
Zimmerman moved for final judgment on his account-related claims and requested permission to file an interlocutory appeal, meaning an appeal before the entire case is finished. The court stated that final judgment on only some claims is generally appropriate only when those claims are sufficiently separate from the remaining claims that an immediate appeal would not create piecemeal litigation. The court noted that Zimmerman himself asserted that he could not reasonably prosecute the privacy-related claims separately from the permanent account-revocation claims. The court denied the motion for final judgment and the request for an interlocutory appeal.
Motion for Reconsideration and Request to Lift Stay
Zimmerman also moved for reconsideration, asking the court to revisit its earlier ruling. The court denied that motion because Zimmerman had not obtained the permission required by the local rules before filing it. The court also found that he had not identified new evidence or law, a clear error in the earlier ruling, or an intervening change in controlling law that would justify reconsideration. For substantially the same reasons, the court denied Zimmerman’s request to lift the stay.
Disposition
Judge Vince Chhabria denied the motion for final judgment, the request for an interlocutory appeal, the motion for reconsideration, and the request to lift the stay. The opinion did not decide the underlying account-related or privacy-related claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.