Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kijimoto v. Youtube, LLC

United States District Court, N.D. California

May 29, 2018

AKIKO KIJIMOTO, Plaintiff,
v.
YOUTUBE LLC, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS RE: DKT. NO. 38

          HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Pending 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.[1]

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Allegations

         In its current form, Plaintiff Akiko Kijimoto's Complaint is disorganized and difficult to follow.[2] 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.[3] 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. at 9.

         As to 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.

         B. Procedural Posture

         Plaintiff filed the Complaint on November, 9, 2017.[4] Defendants filed this motion to dismiss on February 21, 2018. Dkt. No. 38. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.[5] Defendant filed a reply on March 14, 2018. Dkt. No. 41.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         The 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).

         “[A] 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).

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Plaintiff Fails to Allege Sufficient Facts to Plausibly State a Claim.

         A 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.[6]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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.