Black v. Google, Inc., 110111 FED9, 10-16992

Docket Nº:10-16992
Party Name:GARY BLACK, DBA Cal Bay Construction; HOLLI BEAM-BLACK, DBA Castle Roofing, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. GOOGLE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judge Panel:Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:November 01, 2011
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

GARY BLACK, DBA Cal Bay Construction; HOLLI BEAM-BLACK, DBA Castle Roofing, Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

GOOGLE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-16992

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

November 1, 2011

         NOT FOR PUBLICATION

          Submitted October 25, 2011[**]

         Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Claudia A. Wilken, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 4:10-cv-02381-CW.

          Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

          MEMORANDUM[*]

         Gary Black and Holli Beam-Black appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their action arising from an anonymous negative review of their business posted on Google, Inc.'s online business directory. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.

         The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' action as precluded by section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA") because plaintiffs seek to impose liability on Google for content created by a third party. See Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) ("Section 230 of the CDA immunizes providers of interactive computer services against liability arising from content created by third parties . . . ."); Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) ("Through [section 230 of the CDA], Congress granted most Internet services immunity from liability for publishing false or defamatory material so long as the information was provided by another party.").

         The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' post-judgment requests for reconsideration and for a stay pending appeal. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration); Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1435-36 (9th Cir. 1983) (setting forth standard of review and criteria for evaluating a stay pending appeal).

         Plaintiffs' remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

         Plaintiffs' request to correct this court's docket is granted. In accordance with this court's order dated March 21, 2011, the Clerk shall correct docket entry number 15 to reflect the filing of plaintiffs'...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP