J. B. v. G6 Hospitality, LLC
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-07848
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
J. B. v. G6 Hospitality, LLC: Judge Gilliam denied leave to seek reconsideration of Craigslist’s Section 230 immunity and dismissal of state-law claims.
J. B. and the defendants, including Craigslist; the motion concerned the earlier dismissal of J. B.’s state-law claims against Craigslist.
What happened
In J. B. v. G6 Hospitality, LLC, J. B. asked to reconsider the court’s earlier decision that Craigslist was protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and that the state-law claims against Craigslist should be dismissed without permission to amend.
J. B. argued that later Supreme Court authority supported reconsideration and that the earlier decision had not received enough briefing. The court rejected both arguments, explaining that the cited Supreme Court material was not a change or clarification of controlling law and that the additional Washington district court decision was not controlling.
Judge Haywood Gilliam denied the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
The detailed version
- J. B. v. G6 Hospitality, LLC · No. 4:19-cv-07848
- Haywood Gilliam
- Dec. 10, 2020
Background
J. B. moved for permission to file a motion asking the court to reconsider its August 20, 2020 order granting motions to dismiss. The requested reconsideration concerned the court’s conclusion that Craigslist qualified for immunity under Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act and its dismissal, without leave to amend, of J. B.’s state-law claims against Craigslist.
Arguments and analysis
Civil Local Rule 7-9 permits reconsideration of an interlocutory order on specified grounds, including a material difference in fact or law that was previously unknown despite reasonable diligence, new material facts or a change in law after the order, or a manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments.
J. B. first argued that later Supreme Court authority supported reconsideration. The court rejected that argument because the cited material did not constitute a change in or clarification of controlling law. The court noted that the Supreme Court had denied review in the cited matter and that Justice Thomas’s separate writing did not decide the correct interpretation of Section 230; it instead suggested that the issue should be considered in an appropriate case.
J. B. also argued that the earlier order had been issued without sufficiently thorough briefing and asked the court to consider further briefing and possible discovery concerning Craigslist’s immunity. The court held that this argument did not meet any of Rule 7-9’s requirements and found no sufficient reason to allow additional briefing. The court also concluded that a Washington district court decision cited by J. B. did not warrant reconsideration because it was not controlling authority.
Disposition
The court concluded that J. B. had not shown that reconsideration was appropriate and denied the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. This order addressed the request to reopen or reconsider the earlier dismissal order; it did not revisit the entire underlying case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.