Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denies Donald Friend’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend judgment in his action against Google LLC. The court upholds dismissal without leave to amend based on prudential and Article III standing deficiencies and admonishes Plaintiff for apparently fabricating quotations from cited authorities.
Holdings
- The motion to alter or amend the judgment was properly denied because Friend identified no manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered evidence, manifest injustice, or intervening change in controlling law.
- Friend lacked prudential standing because his alleged injury was derivative of an injury to Dumpsters Direct and necessarily depended on a prior injury to that entity.
- NAF Holdings did not support Friend's claims because Friend did not sue Google to enforce his own contractual rights; he sued in connection with a contract between Google and Dumpsters Direct to which he was not a party.
- Even assuming the court erred in its Article III standing analysis, that error would not warrant altering the judgment because the dismissal independently rested on Friend's lack of prudential standing.
- The court did not err in denying leave to amend because Friend could not cure the prudential-standing deficiency through amendment without fundamentally changing his allegations.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
- Whether the court committed a manifest error by determining that Friend's alleged injury was derivative of an injury to Dumpsters Direct and therefore deprived him of prudential standing.
- Whether Friend's characterization as a creditor or independent contractor, rather than an investor, altered the prudential-standing analysis.
- Whether an error in the court's Article III standing analysis would require amendment of the judgment.
- Whether the court erred in denying leave to amend.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (10)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
- Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999)(followed)
- NAF Holdings, LLC v. Li & Fung (Trading) Ltd., 118 A.3d 175, 179-80, 182 (Del. 2015)(distinguished)
- Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2003)(questioned)
- United States v. NH, Inc., 124 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 1997)(questioned)
- United States v. Rockwell International Corp., 124 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 1997)(clarified)
- Shell Petroleum, N.V. v. Graves, 709 F.2d 593 (9th Cir. 1983)(questioned)
- Pareto v. FDIC, 139 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 1998)(questioned)
- Greene v. Discover Bank, No. 23-cv-04825-SVK, 2024 WL 85872, at *2 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2024)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…