Wescott v. Google LLC

Background

Carl A. Wescott, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a negligence complaint against Google LLC. He sought damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, compensation for his time representing himself, and other relief. The court consolidated this action with Wescott’s earlier related case, No. 5:23-cv-06178-VKD.

Wescott alleged that “Mr. Block and the Bob Block Criminal Gang” stole laptops and hijacked Gmail accounts. He claimed that he could not recover the accounts through Google’s online recovery process despite contacting Google employees. He alleged at least $200,000 in lost business opportunities and asserted that Google negligently failed to help him regain the accounts.

Fee-waiver application

Wescott applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court questioned whether he qualified because the complaint referred to Capital Ideas, WLL, as his limited liability company and described that entity as being in the business of making investor introductions. Based on the information Wescott provided under penalty of perjury, the court provisionally granted the application. The court also noted that a corporation may appear in federal court only through a licensed lawyer.

Screening of the complaint

Because Wescott was proceeding without a lawyer and had received fee-waiver status, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. It applied the standard that a complaint must allege enough facts to state a plausible claim for relief. The court explained that conclusory statements and a bare recitation of a claim’s elements are insufficient.

For negligence, the court identified four elements: a legal duty to use reasonable care, breach of that duty, a causal connection between the breach and the injury, and injury. The court found that Wescott referred to Google’s “legal duties” to him as a customer but did not identify or describe those duties. It also found that he needed to allege facts plausibly showing both a breach and that the breach caused the claimed damages.

Disposition

The court found that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief. It stayed service of process and granted Wescott leave to amend. Any amendment had to be titled “Second Amended Complaint” and filed only in the lead case, No. 5:23-cv-06178-VKD, by March 15, 2024. The court stated that if Wescott did not timely amend, or could not cure the identified deficiencies, it would recommend termination and dismissal of the complaint in whole or in part.

The order did not itself dismiss the complaint. It provisionally granted the fee-waiver application, stayed service, and allowed another amendment opportunity.