Sifuentes v. Google Inc.

Background

On June 26, 2023, the court granted Google’s motion to dismiss and entered judgment in Google’s favor. The present order addresses Sifuentes’s motion seeking reconsideration, alteration or amendment of the judgment, permission to amend his complaint, and relief from the judgment.

Before filing this case, Sifuentes had brought state-law billing claims against Google in an earlier federal case. That court dismissed his complaint as frivolous during an initial screening and denied permission to amend. Sifuentes then filed this case, asserting nearly identical claims and relying on diversity jurisdiction, which is a basis for federal jurisdiction when the parties meet specified requirements, including the required amount in dispute.

The court stayed this case while Sifuentes pursued arbitration before the American Arbitration Association. After the arbitration organization found that it did not have jurisdiction, the court lifted the stay and allowed Sifuentes to seek amendment. The court rejected his proposed amended complaint and instructed him to file a second amended complaint complying with Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Sifuentes’s second amended complaint did not follow those instructions and added data-breach claims unrelated to the earlier billing claims.

The court later granted Google’s renewed motion to dismiss. It struck the data-breach claims because they exceeded the scope of the court’s permission to amend. It also ruled that Sifuentes’s federal truth-in-billing claim failed to state a claim and could not be corrected by another amendment. As to the remaining claims, the court found that the complaint itself showed that the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction was not met.

Sifuentes’s motion

Sifuentes asked to reopen the case and file an amended complaint asserting negligent infliction of emotional distress, data-breach claims, and related state-law issues. He argued that diversity jurisdiction existed because he was seeking $350,000 in actual damages and $250,000,000 in punitive damages rather than a refund of his telephone bill.

He also sought relief from the judgment based on surprise and excusable neglect. He stated that he had intended to address these issues at a hearing on Google’s motion to dismiss, but the court canceled the hearing. He argued that, if the hearing had occurred, the court might have allowed him to amend the complaint to establish diversity jurisdiction.

Court’s analysis

The court treated the motion as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e), or alternatively as a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b).

Under Rule 59(e), changing a judgment is an extraordinary remedy. The court may consider grounds such as a clear legal or factual error, newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, serious unfairness, or an intervening change in controlling law. The court held that Sifuentes identified none of those grounds. He did not point to new evidence or a change in the law, identify a legal or factual error in the dismissal order, or establish serious unfairness. The court also rejected his argument concerning the canceled hearing because he had filed an opposition brief, which the court considered, and nothing in his motion showed that the absence of a hearing caused serious unfairness.

Under Rule 60(b), a court may provide relief from a final judgment for reasons including mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. The court held that Sifuentes had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for that relief. He had an opportunity to file an opposition brief and did so, and the court concluded that the arguments he said he would have made at a hearing would not have changed the result.

Disposition

The court denied Sifuentes’s motion. The order did not reopen the case, change the judgment, or permit the proposed amendment.