United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS RE:
DKT. NO. 38
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is a motion to dismiss by Defendants
YouTube, LLC (“YouTube”) and Google, LLC
(“Google”). Dkt. No. 38. For the reasons set
forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion with
LEAVE TO AMEND.
current form, Plaintiff Akiko Kijimoto's Complaint is
disorganized and difficult to follow. Plaintiff seems to allege
that an unnamed third party uploaded content on YouTube that
has caused “defamation and harassment.” Dkt. No.
1-1 (Complaint, or “Compl.”) at 11. She describes
the video as a recording of her and a high school boyfriend
performing karaoke. Id. at II. Plaintiff mentions
“Cyberbullying” and “Cybercrime, ” as
well as more than 10 years of “net stalking.”
Id. She appears to allege that the content posted by
the third party is copyrighted material. Id. at
10. She also confusingly claims that the third party's
content “causes defamation and harassment to official
artists and music record Company.” Id. at 10.
Plaintiff further appears to state “life insurance,
” “copyright, ” and “life liability
insurance” as additional causes of action. Id.
relief sought, Plaintiff apparently seeks $2 billion in
damages and requests the disclosure of the third party's
IP address information and the deletion of the third
party's video. Id. at 9-10. Plaintiff also
requests that YouTube more closely monitor what content is
publicly published. Id. at 10.
filed the Complaint on November, 9, 2017. Defendants filed
this motion to dismiss on February 21, 2018. Dkt. No. 38.
Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Defendant filed a reply on
March 14, 2018. Dkt. No. 41.
complaint must include a “short and plain statement,
” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), and “sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotation omitted). Plaintiff must
provide the grounds that entitle her to relief. Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must
be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). However, even a “liberal interpretation of a
. . . complaint may not supply essential elements of the
claim that were not initially pled.” See Ivey v.
Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268
(9th Cir. 1982). “[P]ro se litigants are bound by the
rules of procedure, ” Ghazali v. Moran, 46
F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995), which require “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). “[A]
plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of [her]
entitlement to relief requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555 (internal quotations omitted).
Plaintiff Fails to Allege Sufficient Facts to Plausibly State
complaint that is “highly repetitious” or
“confused, ” or that “consist[s] of
incomprehensible rambling” violates Rule 8(a).
Cafasso, U.S. ex rel v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys, Inc.,
637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011). Both the content and
structure of the Complaint, which consists primarily of
sentence fragments, are unclear.See, e.g., Compl.
at 11 (“I thought why but i got the same damage and
understood the meaning.”). It is comprised mostly of
irrelevant facts. Plaintiff includes information about credit
card fraud and her divorce without articulating how those
facts relate to her causes of action or the relief sought.
Plaintiff's Complaint similarly does not clearly identify
any causes of action. It presents no unifying theme or clear
factual pattern from which a claim could be identified,
instead jumping from accusations that YouTube is engaged in
“trafficking in persons and act of killing people
because the human voice is included in the ...