Riggs v. MySpace, Inc., 072511 FED9, 09-56633
|Party Name:||JULIE C. RIGGS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MYSPACE, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: SCHROEDER, ALARC|
|Case Date:||July 25, 2011|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted July 12, 2011.[**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. King, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03073-GHK-CT.
Julie C. Riggs appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing with prejudice her diversity action alleging state law claims of negligence, gross negligence, "promissory fraud breach of contract, " and breach of implied-in-fact contract. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
The district court properly dismissed Riggs's negligence and gross negligence claims, arising from MySpace's decisions to delete Riggs's user profiles on its social networking website yet not delete other profiles Riggs alleged were created by celebrity imposters, because these claims were precluded by section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act. See Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) ("[A]ny activity that can be boiled down to deciding whether to exclude material that third parties seek to post online is perforce immune under section 230.").
However, the district court improperly dismissed Riggs's implied-in-fact contract claim, arising from her ideas for a...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP