Bamforth v. Facebook, Inc.

Background

Andrew David Bamforth, representing himself, filed the case in San Mateo County Superior Court against Facebook, Inc. and Mark Zuckerberg. He alleged trademark and copyright infringement and various state-law claims. The defendants removed the case to federal court based on federal-question jurisdiction.

Bamforth alleged that he created Faceparty, a social-networking website, in 2000 and that Facebook later copied some of its features. In 2008, he signed an agreement on behalf of CIS Internet Ltd. that provided for an $800,000 pre-litigation settlement, released claims relating to Facebook’s use of the relevant trademarks, and assigned the trademark to the defendants. Bamforth later argued that the defendants manipulated him into signing the agreement and that it was void because he was mentally incapacitated. He also asserted that CIS had previously sold its trademark rights to Anarchy Towers Ltd.

In September 2021, the court dismissed Bamforth’s First Amended Complaint with prejudice. It held that his state-law claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and rejected his arguments for statutory and equitable tolling. It also held that his federal trademark claim under the Lanham Act was barred by the 2008 agreement and rejected his arguments that the release was invalid or did not apply. Judgment for Facebook was entered the same day.

Motion for Reconsideration

Bamforth moved for relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule permits a court to grant extraordinary relief from a final judgment only on specified grounds, including mistake, qualifying newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction or discharge of the judgment, or another qualifying exceptional reason.

Bamforth relied primarily on alleged mistake, newly discovered evidence, and Rule 60(b)(6)’s catch-all provision. He argued that he had failed to explain his mental incapacity adequately, that additional medical evidence supported his position, that he had been delayed by legal advice, and that the court had applied the wrong law to the Anarchy Towers agreement. He also argued that the 2008 agreement was void, that its release did not cover later infringement, that it did not bind him personally, and that the court had failed to address his equitable-estoppel argument. He separately pointed to Facebook’s later renaming and rebranding as “Meta.”

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the motion did not satisfy Rule 60(b)’s demanding standard. A reconsideration motion cannot be used to reargue issues already decided, present evidence that could have been submitted earlier, or introduce new arguments that could reasonably have been raised during the motion to dismiss.

The court rejected Bamforth’s arguments concerning mental incapacity and statutory tolling. It stated that his allegations were conclusory, inadequate to plead continuous incapacity, and contradicted by other allegations suggesting that he could manage his business and property with assistance. The court also held that the additional medical evidence was not newly discovered because Bamforth knew about it before judgment and did not show that it would likely have changed the result.

The court rejected Bamforth’s equitable-tolling and equitable-estoppel arguments because he did not explain the delay between his claimed recovery in October 2018 and the filing of the lawsuit in 2020. It also rejected his challenges to the 2008 agreement because they either repeated arguments previously made, contradicted his earlier factual allegations, or were raised for the first time in the reconsideration motion. The court concluded that the agreement’s language covered future claims and bound Bamforth’s successors and assignees.

The court found no basis to reconsider the dismissal based on Facebook’s rebranding. It did not understand how that assertion related to Bamforth’s claims and found that he had provided no new evidence supporting them. The court also struck the portions of a later notice that contained additional arguments because briefing on the reconsideration motion had already closed.

Disposition

The court denied Bamforth’s motion for reconsideration and stated that it would entertain no further motions for reconsideration. The court also granted the defendants’ administrative motion to seal portions of their opposition brief that quoted from the 2008 agreement.