Fontanez v. Facebook Inc.
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:21-cv-06920
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Fontanez v. Facebook Inc.: Judge Spero granted fee-waiver status but ordered Fontanez to explain why his breach-of-contract case should not be dismissed.
Fernando Fontanez, who received permission to proceed without paying filing fees but was required to respond to the court’s concerns about his complaint; Facebook, Inc., which remained the defendant.
What happened
In Fontanez v. Facebook Inc., Fernando Fontanez, representing himself, alleged that Facebook disabled his account, failed to send access codes, and did not respond to his request for a meeting. He claimed Facebook breached a contract and sought $20,000.
The court found that Fontanez had not explained the contract’s terms, his own performance, Facebook’s specific breach, or how the alleged breach caused his damages. The court therefore questioned whether the complaint stated a legally sufficient claim, but it did not dismiss the case in this order.
Judge Joseph C. Spero granted Fontanez’s application to proceed without paying filing fees and ordered him to show cause by filing either an amended complaint or a response explaining why the existing complaint was sufficient. The order states that failure to respond would lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Fontanez v. Facebook Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-06920
- Richard Seeborg
- Sept. 10, 2021
Background
Fernando Fontanez, proceeding without a lawyer, applied to proceed without paying the court’s filing fees. He alleged that Facebook disabled his account, failed to send text-message access codes to his phone, and did not respond to his request to meet with a Facebook representative about alleged fraud on Facebook and the possibility of a one-percent reward. He asserted a breach-of-contract claim and sought $20,000 in damages.
Court’s analysis
The court granted Fontanez’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. Because he received that status, the court was required to screen his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant immune from such relief.
The court explained that a complaint must provide enough factual information to state a plausible claim. For a breach-of-contract claim, the court identified the relevant elements as the existence of a contract, the plaintiff’s performance or justified nonperformance, the defendant’s breach, and resulting damages.
The court concluded that Fontanez had addressed those elements only in a cursory way. He did not explain the alleged contract’s terms, how he performed, what Facebook did or failed to do that breached the contract, or how Facebook’s conduct caused his damages. The attachments to the complaint did not provide clear answers. The court therefore ordered Fontanez to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Disposition
The court granted the application to proceed without paying filing fees. It did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, it ordered Fontanez to file either an amended complaint or a response arguing that his current complaint was sufficient. The order stated that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint and could not incorporate the original complaint by reference. The order further stated that failure to respond would result in reassignment to a district judge with a recommendation that the case be dismissed with prejudice.
The opinion contains inconsistent response deadlines: the introduction states October 8, 2021, while the conclusion states October 7, 2021.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.