Lindblad v. SalesForce
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-07432
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
Lindblad v. SALESFORCE: Judge Beeler dismissed the complaint with leave to amend after finding no plausible federal claim or basis for federal jurisdiction.
Robert M. Lindblad's complaint against SALESFORCE was dismissed at the required pre-service screening stage, but he was allowed to amend it by October 25, 2021.
What happened
In Lindblad v. SALESFORCE, Robert M. Lindblad, representing himself and proceeding without paying filing fees, claimed Salesforce owed him $110,000 after he found multiple accounts in his name. He also mentioned copyright infringement but provided no facts supporting that claim.
The court screened the complaint before service and found that it did not plausibly state a federal claim. The court also found no federal-question or diversity jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend by October 25, 2021. Lindblad could instead voluntarily dismiss the case, which would be without prejudice.
Judge Beeler ordered the dismissal with leave to amend. The order stated that if Lindblad did not amend, the case would be reassigned to a district judge, who would be asked to dismiss it.
The detailed version
- Lindblad v. SalesForce · No. 4:21-cv-07432
- Haywood Gilliam
- Oct. 4, 2021
Background
Robert M. Lindblad sued SALESFORCE, claiming that the company owed him $110,000. He alleged that he had a contractual relationship with SALESFORCE and subscribed to its website. After learning that multiple accounts existed in his name, he believed SALESFORCE owed him that amount, invoiced the company, and accused it of fraud. The complaint also asserted copyright infringement but included no facts supporting that claim.
Screening standard
Because Lindblad was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) before directing the United States Marshal to serve it. The court explained that it must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. A complaint must provide enough factual matter to make the claimed entitlement to relief plausible and must give a short and plain statement of the claim. Courts generally read complaints filed without a lawyer generously, but they cannot assume facts that the complaint does not allege.
Application and disposition
The court found that Lindblad asserted a fraud claim for $110,000 but did not explain when or how SALESFORCE took his money. It also found that the complaint presented no federal question and no other basis for federal jurisdiction, including diversity jurisdiction. The order stated that all parties resided in California, so the parties were not citizens of different states for diversity purposes. The court further found the complaint frivolous because it did not provide the required short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.
The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Lindblad was allowed to file an amended complaint by October 25, 2021 if he could correct the identified deficiencies. If he did not amend, the case would be reassigned to a district judge, who would be asked to dismiss it. The order also stated that Lindblad could voluntarily dismiss the case by filing a one-page notice; that dismissal would be without prejudice and would allow him to pursue his claims later.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.