Brickman v. Facebook, Inc.
- William Orrick
- 3:16-cv-00751
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Brickman v. Facebook, Judge Orrick entered judgment for Facebook after denying Brickman leave to amend as futile under Duguid.
The judgment favors Facebook, Inc. and affects Colin R. Brickman, whose proposed second amended complaint was not allowed. The order states that Brickman’s right to appeal was preserved.
What happened
In Brickman v. Facebook, Inc., Colin R. Brickman sought permission to file a second amended complaint against Facebook, Inc. The court had already reviewed his existing and proposed allegations about Facebook’s conduct.
The court considered the allegations true for purposes of deciding whether amendment was allowed, and also considered a declaration from Randall A. Snyder. It concluded that the allegations were legally insufficient under Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, so it denied permission to amend because the proposed changes would not fix the problem.
After reviewing the parties’ report about their discussions, Judge William Orrick ordered that judgment be entered for Facebook. The order states that Brickman’s right to appeal the judgment following the denial of permission to amend was preserved.
The detailed version
- Brickman v. Facebook, Inc. · No. 3:16-cv-00751
- William Orrick
- Sept. 23, 2021
Background
Colin R. Brickman sued Facebook, Inc. The court’s order followed an earlier September 15, 2021 order denying Brickman’s motion for permission to file a second amended complaint.
Court’s analysis
In deciding whether the proposed amendment would be futile, the court assumed the truth of the allegations in Brickman’s First Amended Complaint and the additional allegations in the proposed Second Amended Complaint. The court also considered the declaration of Randall A. Snyder. The parties had been told that the court would evaluate the existing and proposed allegations concerning Facebook’s conduct under Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021).
The court concluded that the existing and proposed allegations were legally insufficient. Because the proposed amendment would not cure that legal deficiency, the court had denied Brickman’s motion for permission to file the Second Amended Complaint.
Ruling
After reviewing the parties’ joint report concerning their efforts to discuss the issues, the court ordered that judgment be entered in favor of Facebook. The court also stated that Brickman’s right to appeal the judgment following the order denying permission to amend was fully preserved.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.