Fyk v. Facebook, Inc.

Background

The court described this filing as the latest in a series of filings in a closed case. In June 2019, the court dismissed Jason Fyk’s case without leave to amend and entered judgment for Facebook. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court declined to review the matter. Fyk later filed a first motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows a court to provide relief from a final judgment for specified reasons. That motion was denied, and the denial was also affirmed on appeal.

Fyk then filed a second Rule 60(b) motion, relying on Rule 60(b)(5). He argued that a change in the law justified reversing the earlier dismissal. He also filed a separate motion concerning the constitutionality of Section 230(c)(1), a provision the earlier decisions applied to his claims.

Analysis

The court denied the Rule 60(b)(5) motion for the same basic reason given when the first motion was denied: none of the authorities Fyk cited changed controlling precedent on which the original dismissal rested. The court noted that five of the six authorities were decisions from outside the circuit, district court decisions, or a statement by one Supreme Court justice. Those authorities were not binding and therefore could not have changed the controlling legal framework in the Ninth Circuit. The court did not decide whether a legal change could ever justify relief under Rule 60(b)(5).

The court also found that the one controlling Ninth Circuit decision Fyk cited, Lemmon v. Snap, Inc., did not support reopening this case. In Lemmon, the claim involved alleged negligent product design rather than liability based on publishing or moderating third-party content. Here, the earlier court had found that all three of Fyk’s claims arose from Facebook’s removal or moderation of his pages and were barred by Section 230(c)(1). The Ninth Circuit had directly affirmed those conclusions.

The court further held that Fyk’s disagreement with the earlier decisions was not an exceptional circumstance warranting relief from the judgment. The court stated that the Ninth Circuit’s decision remained binding and that Fyk could not continue to relitigate legal issues that had been definitively decided and affirmed on appeal.

Disposition

The court denied Fyk’s motion to vacate the judgment, leaving the case closed and the 2019 judgment for Facebook in place. Because there was no active case, the court terminated Fyk’s separate motion concerning the constitutionality of Section 230(c)(1). The court also warned that further filings attempting to relitigate matters already affirmed by the Ninth Circuit could lead to additional proceedings, including an order requiring Fyk’s counsel to explain why counsel’s permission to appear in the case should not be revoked.