Rutenburg v. Twitter, Inc.
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-00548
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Rutenburg v. Twitter, Judge Rogers denied leave to file a second amended complaint because the proposed changes did not cure jurisdictional defects.
Maria Rutenburg and Twitter, Inc.; the order leaves in place the prior dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
What happened
Rutenburg v. Twitter, Inc. had already been dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Maria Rutenburg then asked to file a second amended complaint, and Twitter opposed that request.
The court said the proposed changes added details about Twitter, Donald Trump, Trump’s Twitter account, Rutenburg’s Twitter use, and a prior case. But they did not address the court’s earlier conclusion that Twitter was not a state actor and was not exercising government authority.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. She directed the clerk to enter judgment consistent with this order and the earlier dismissal order.
The detailed version
- Rutenburg v. Twitter, Inc. · No. 4:21-cv-00548
- Yvonne Rogers
- May 28, 2021
Background The court had previously ordered the case dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Maria Rutenburg then moved for permission to file a second amended complaint. Twitter, Inc. opposed the motion.
Legal standard Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), courts generally should allow amendment when justice requires. The court may deny leave for reasons including undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to fix deficiencies, prejudice, or futility. An amendment is futile when the proposed complaint would still be subject to dismissal.
Court’s analysis The court found the proposed amendments futile. The new allegations provided additional details about Twitter, former President Donald Trump, Trump’s Twitter account, Rutenburg’s use of Twitter, and the Second Circuit’s decision in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump. The court concluded that these allegations did not change or address its earlier determination that Twitter was not a state actor and was not exercising sovereign state authority. The court stated that Rutenburg could not transform Twitter into a state actor merely by alleging that Twitter administered Trump’s account.
Disposition The court denied the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. It directed the clerk to enter judgment consistent with this order and the prior order dismissing the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order terminated Docket Number 22.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.