Berkery v. Twitter, Inc.
- Jeffrey White
- 4:23-cv-04065
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Berkery v. Twitter, Judge White denied Berkery’s request for a preliminary injunction and ordered him to respond to Twitter’s pending dismissal motion.
John C. Berkery and Twitter, Inc.; Berkery’s preliminary-injunction request was denied, and he was required to brief Twitter’s pending motion to dismiss.
What happened
In John C. Berkery v. Twitter, Inc., Berkery asked the court to disclose the allegedly offending tweet and stop Twitter from filing certain motions while that disclosure was pending.
The court found that Berkery had not shown a likely chance of success, irreparable harm, or equities favoring an injunction. It therefore denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
Judge Jeffrey White ordered Berkery to file a substantive response of no more than 15 pages to Twitter’s pending motion to dismiss by February 16, 2024. Twitter could reply by February 23, 2024, and the court warned that failing to respond on time would result in dismissal; it also canceled the February 16 hearing.
The detailed version
- Berkery v. Twitter, Inc. · No. 4:23-cv-04065
- Jeffrey White
- Feb. 1, 2024
Background
John C. Berkery sought a preliminary injunction requiring Twitter, Inc. to disclose his allegedly offending tweet and preventing Twitter from filing motions to dismiss or for summary judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or 56. Twitter had also filed a motion to dismiss, which remained pending.
Preliminary-injunction standard
The court explained that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy. Berkery had to show a likely chance of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without an injunction, that the balance of hardships favored him, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. The court also recognized that an injunction may be available under a sliding-scale approach when there are serious questions on the merits and the hardship balance sharply favors the plaintiff, provided the other requirements are met.
Ruling on the injunction
The court concluded that Berkery had not met his burden to show a likely chance of success. It stated that Twitter’s arguments supporting dismissal were adequately outlined in its pending motion to dismiss. The court also found that Berkery had not shown irreparable harm from denying his request to stop motion practice while awaiting disclosure of the tweet. It explained that a plaintiff must first satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8 before discovery and that the court must determine whether an amended complaint states a plausible claim for relief before discovery is allowed. The court further found that the equities favored allowing Twitter to exercise its procedural right to file motions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court therefore DENIES Berkery’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
Briefing and hearing
Because Berkery had responded to the motion to dismiss only by pointing to his earlier request to halt motion practice, the court ordered him to file a substantive response of no more than 15 pages by February 16, 2024. Twitter could file a reply by February 23, 2024. The court stated that failure to timely oppose the motion would result in dismissal of the matter and vacated the February 16 hearing date. The opinion did not decide Twitter’s motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.