Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 80 Filed 10/27/22 Page 1 of 38
`
`ARI HOLTZBLATT (pro hac vice)
`Ari.Holtzblatt@wilmerhale.com
`JEREMY W. BRINSTER (pro hac vice)
`Jeremy.Brinster@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 663-6000
`Facsimile: (202) 663-6363
`
`
`
`
`SONAL N. MEHTA (SBN 222086)
`Sonal.Mehta@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`Telephone: (650) 858-6000
`Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
`
`EMILY BARNET (pro hac vice)
`Emily.Barnet@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY 10007
`Telephone: (212) 230-8800
`Facsimile: (212) 230-8888
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`META PLATFORMS, INC. and
`MARK ZUCKERBERG
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`LAURA LOOMER, as an individual, LAURA
`LOOMER, in her capacity as a Candidate for
`United States Congress, and LAURA LOOMER
`FOR CONGRESS, INC.,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`META PLATFORMS, INC., MARK
`ZUCKERBERG, in his capacity as CEO of Meta
`Platforms, Inc. and as an individual, TWITTER,
`INC., and JACK DORSEY, in his capacity as
`former CEO of Twitter, Inc. and as an individual,
`THE PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY,
`DOES 1-100, individuals,
`Defendants.
`
`
` Case No. 3:22-cv-02646-LB
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC. AND
`MARK ZUCKERBERG’S NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED
`COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`Hon. Laurel Beeler
`Courtroom B, 15th Floor
`Date: January 26, 2023
`Time: 9:30 a.m.
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02646-LB
`
`
`
`META DEFS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. TO
`DISMISS AM. COMPL.; MEMO. ISO
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 80 Filed 10/27/22 Page 2 of 38
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS ..................................................................1
`
`STATEMENT OF REQUESTED RELIEF .....................................................................................1
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Meta’s Facebook And Content-Moderation Policies ...............................................2
`
`Removal Of Loomer’s Facebook Accounts For Violating Meta’s Policies ............4
`
`Moderation Of Hate Speech By Other Social Media Websites ...............................5
`
`Loomer’s Series of Meritless Lawsuits Based On The Same Events ......................5
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................6
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Loomer’s Claims Are Barred By Res Judicata ....................................................................6
`
`Loomer Has Not Stated A Civil RICO Claim .....................................................................8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Loomer Has Not Pleaded A RICO Enterprise .........................................................9
`
`Loomer Has Not Pleaded A “Pattern” Of Racketeering Activity ..........................11
`
`Loomer Has Not Pleaded A Cognizable Injury Proximately Caused By The
`Alleged Predicate Acts ...........................................................................................13
`
`Loomer Has Not Pleaded Any Predicate Act ........................................................15
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Loomer Has Not Plausibly Alleged Wire Fraud ........................................15
`
`Loomer Has Not Pleaded Extortion Under The Hobbs Or Travel
`Acts ............................................................................................................18
`
`Loomer Has Not Pleaded Material Support Under The ATA ...................20
`
`Alleged Violations Of The Smith Act Are Not RICO Predicate
`Acts And Not Plausibly Pled .....................................................................21
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`Loomer Has Not Stated A Claim For Rico Conspiracy .....................................................22
`
`Section 230 Independently Bars Loomer’s Claims ...........................................................23
`
`Dismissal Should Be With Prejudice .................................................................................25
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02646-LB
`
`
`
`i
`
`META DEFS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. TO
`DISMISS AM. COMPL.; MEMO. ISO
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 80 Filed 10/27/22 Page 3 of 38
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Andrus v. Allard,
`444 U.S. 51 (1979) .............................................................................................................14
`
`Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Co.,
`547 U.S. 451 (2006) ...........................................................................................................14
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .....................................................................................................22, 23
`
`Baldino’s Lock & Key Service, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`88 F. Supp. 3d 543 (E.D. Va. 2015) ..................................................................................24
`
`Banks v. ACS Education,
`638 F. App’x 587 (9th Cir. 2016) ......................................................................................22
`
`Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.,
`570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) ...........................................................................................24
`
`Baumer v. Pachl,
`8 F.3d 1341 (9th Cir. 1993) .........................................................................................22, 23
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .....................................................................................................10, 22
`
`Boyle v. United States,
`556 U.S. 938 (2009) .......................................................................................................9, 10
`
`Burks v. United States,
`437 U.S. 1 (1978) ...............................................................................................................22
`
`C&M Café v. Kinetic Farm, Inc.,
`2016 WL 6822071 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2016) ..................................................................13
`
`Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc.,
`637 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2011) ...........................................................................................25
`
`Calise v. Meta Platforms, Inc.,
`2022 WL 1240860 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2022) ...................................................................23
`
`Canyon County v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc.,
`519 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2008) .......................................................................................13, 14
`
`Caraccioli v. Facebook, Inc.,
`167 F. Supp. 3d 1056 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ...............................................................................3
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02646-LB
`
`ii
`
`META DEFS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. TO
`DISMISS AM. COMPL.; MEMO. ISO
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 80 Filed 10/27/22 Page 4 of 38
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Chaset v. Fleer/Skybox International LP,
`300 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2002) ...........................................................................................14
`
`Cobb v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
`2013 WL 6201414 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2013) ..................................................................19
`
`Costantini v. Trans World Airlines,
`681 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir. 1982) .............................................................................................7
`
`Dennis v. United States,
`341 U.S. 494 (1951) ...........................................................................................................22
`
`Diaz v. Gates,
`420 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2005) .......................................................................................13, 14
`
`Doan v. Singh,
`617 F. App’x 684 (9th Cir. 2015) ......................................................................................10
`
`Dooley v. Crab Boat Owners Ass’n,
`271 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (N.D. Cal. 2003) .............................................................................19
`
`Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Group,
`934 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2019) ...........................................................................................23
`
`Eclectic Properties East, LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Co.,
`751 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................10, 16, 17
`
`Eller v. EquiTrust Life Insurance Co.,
`778 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2015) ...........................................................................................15
`
`Factory Direct Wholesale, LLC v. iTouchless Housewares & Products, Inc.,
`411 F. Supp. 3d 905 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ...............................................................................25
`
`Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC,
`521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) ...............................................................................23, 24, 25
`
`Federal Agency of News LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`395 F. Supp. 3d 1295 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .............................................................................24
`
`Feng v. County of Santa Clara,
`2019 WL 7194475 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2019) ...................................................................13
`
`Ferrari v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`2016 WL 7188030 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2016) ...................................................................11
`
`Fields v. Twitter, Inc.,
`881 F.3d 739 (9th Cir. 2018) .............................................................................................14
`
`Focus 15, LLC v. NICO Corp.,
`2022 WL 2355537 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2022) ...................................................................18
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02646-LB
`
`iii
`
`META DEFS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. TO
`DISMISS AM. COMPL.; MEMO. ISO
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 80 Filed 10/27/22 Page 5 of 38
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Force v. Facebook, Inc.,
`934 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2019).............................................................................................3, 24
`
`Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`368 F. Supp. 3d 30 (D.D.C. 2019), aff’d, 816 F. App’x 497 (D.C. Cir.
`2020) ....................................................................................................................................5
`
`Fulani v. Bentsen,
`862 F. Supp. 1140 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).....................................................................................8
`
`Fyk v. Facebook, Inc.,
`2019 WL 11288576 (N.D. Cal. 2019), aff’d, 808 F. App’x 597 (9th Cir.
`2020) ............................................................................................................................24, 25
`
`Fyk v. Facebook, Inc.,
`808 F. App’x 597 (9th Cir. 2020) ......................................................................................24
`
`Glaser v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC,
`2017 WL 1861850 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2017) .....................................................................21
`
`H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.,
`492 U.S. 229 (1989) ...........................................................................................................12
`
`Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service,
`399 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2005) .........................................................................................6, 7
`
`Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York,
`559 U.S. 1 (2010) ...............................................................................................................14
`
`Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project,
`561 U.S. 1 (2010) ...............................................................................................................20
`
`Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp.,
`503 U.S. 258 (1992) ...........................................................................................................14
`
`Howard v. America Online Inc.,
`208 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................12, 20, 22
`
`Hussein v. Dahabshiil Transfer Services Ltd.,
`230 F. Supp. 3d 167 (S.D.N.Y. 2017), aff’d 705 F. App’x 40 (2d Cir.
`2017) ..................................................................................................................................21
`
`Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. ConsumerAffairs.com,
`2017 WL 2728413 (D. Utah June 23, 2017) ......................................................................24
`
`Illoominate Media, Inc. v. CAIR Florida, Inc.,
`2022 WL 4589357 (11th Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................25
`
`In re GlenFed, Inc. Securities Litigation,
`42 F.3d 1541 (9th Cir. 1994) .............................................................................................15
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02646-LB
`
`iv
`
`META DEFS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. TO
`DISMISS AM. COMPL.; MEMO. ISO
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 80 Filed 10/27/22 Page 6 of 38
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`In re Gottheiner,
`703 F.2d 1136 (9th Cir. 1983) .............................................................................................7
`
`In re JUUL Labs, Inc., Marketing, Sales Practices, & Products Liability
`Litigation,
`497 F. Supp. 3d 552 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ...................................................................11, 15, 16
`
`In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, & Products
`Liability Litigation,
`2019 WL 6749534 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2019) .....................................................................13
`
`In re Zoom Video Communications, Inc. Privacy Litigation,
`525 F. Supp. 3d 1017 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ...............................................................................3
`
`Kelly v. United States,
`140 S. Ct. 1565 (2020) .......................................................................................................15
`
`Kimzey v. Yelp! Inc.,
`836 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir. 2016) ...........................................................................................24
`
`King v. Facebook, Inc.,
`572 F. Supp. 3d 776 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ...............................................................................24
`
`Klayman v. Zuckerberg,
`753 F.3d 1354 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .........................................................................................23
`
`Knievel v. ESPN,
`393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) .........................................................................................3, 4
`
`Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publishing,
`512 F.3d 522 (9th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................25
`
`Levitt v. Yelp! Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2014) .....................................................................................18, 19
`
`Linares v. CitiMortgage, Inc.,
`2015 WL 2088705 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2015) .......................................................................9
`
`Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co.,
`431 F.3d 353 (9th Cir. 2005) ...............................................................................................9
`
`McCracken v. Wells Fargo Bank NA,
`2017 WL 1428716 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2017) ...................................................................21
`
`Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo,
`418 U.S. 241 (1974) .............................................................................................................8
`
`Midwest Grinding Co. v. Spitz,
`976 F.2d 1016 (7th Cir. 1999) .............................................................................................8
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02646-LB
`
`v
`
`META DEFS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. TO
`DISMISS AM. COMPL.; MEMO. ISO
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 80 Filed 10/27/22 Page 7 of 38
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Monterey Plaza Hotel Ltd. v. Local 483,
`215 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................7, 17, 18
`
`National Organization for Women v. Scheidler,
`510 U.S. 249 (1994) .............................................................................................................8
`
`Neibel v. Trans World Assurance Co.,
`108 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 1997) .............................................................................................9
`
`NetChoice, LLC v. Attorney General,
`34 F.4th 1196 (11th Cir. 2022) ............................................................................................8
`
`Nguyen v. Chow,
`2014 WL 12625960 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2014) ..................................................................8
`
`O’Handley v. Padilla,
`579 F. Supp. 3d 1163 (N.D. Cal. 2022) ...............................................................................8
`
`Odom v. Microsoft Corp.,
`486 F.3d 541 (9th Cir. 2007) ...............................................................................................9
`
`Oscar v. University Students Cooperative Ass’n,
`965 F.2d 783 (9th Cir. 1992) .......................................................................................13, 14
`
`Pedrina v. Chun,
`97 F.3d 1296 (9th Cir. 1996) ...............................................................................................7
`
`Price v. Pinnacle Brands,
`138 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 1998) .............................................................................................14
`
`R.J. v. Cigna Behavioral Health, Inc.,
`2021 WL 1110261 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2021) ...................................................................18
`
`Reves v. Ernst & Young,
`507 U.S. 170 (1993) ...........................................................................................................11
`
`Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc.,
`442 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2006) ...............................................................................................5
`
`Rothman v. Vedder Park Management,
`912 F.2d 315 (9th Cir. 1990) .............................................................................................18
`
`Royce International Broadcasting Corp. v. Field,
`2000 WL 236434 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2000) .......................................................................8
`
`Sanchez-Torres v. State,
`322 So. 3d 15 (Fla. 2020)...................................................................................................18
`
`Savage v. Council on American-Islamic Relations, Inc.,
`2008 WL 2951281 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2008) ......................................................................9
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02646-LB
`
`vi
`
`META DEFS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. TO
`DISMISS AM. COMPL.; MEMO. ISO
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 80 Filed 10/27/22 Page 8 of 38
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Scheidler v. National Organization of Women, Inc.,
`537 U.S. 393 (2003) .....................................................................................................19, 20
`
`Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co.,
`473 U.S. 479 (1985) ...........................................................................................................21
`
`Sephery-Fard v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.,
`2015 WL 1063070 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2015) ...................................................................25
`
`Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp.,
`978 F.2d 1529 (9th Cir. 1992) ...........................................................................................11
`
`Sheperd v. American Honda Motor Co.,
`822 F. Supp. 625 (N.D. Cal. 1993) ....................................................................................14
`
`Sikhs for Justice “SFJ,” Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`144 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2015), aff’d, 697 F. App’x 526 (9th Cir.
`2017) ............................................................................................................................23, 25
`
`Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Triple A Machine Shop, Inc.,
`720 F. Supp. 805 (N.D. Cal. 1989) ......................................................................................9
`
`Sun Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Dierdorff,
`825 F.2d 187 (9th Cir. 1987) .............................................................................................13
`
`Swartz v. KPMG LLP,
`476 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................................15
`
`Taylor v. Sturgell,
`553 U.S. 880 (2008) .............................................................................................................8
`
`Threshold Enterprises Ltd. v. Pressed Juicery, Inc.,
`445 F. Supp. 3d 139 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .................................................................................3
`
`Titan Global LLC v. Organo Gold International, Inc.,
`2012 WL 6019285 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2012) .....................................................................15
`
`Turner v. Cook,
`362 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2004) ...........................................................................................11
`
`United States v. Al Kassar,
`660 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2011)...............................................................................................20
`
`United States v. Christensen,
`828 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2015) .............................................................................................10
`
`United States v. Fernandez,
`388 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................................9
`
`United States v. Green,
`592 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2010) ...........................................................................................16
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02646-LB
`vii
`META DEFS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. TO
`DISMISS AM. COMPL.; MEMO. ISO
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 80 Filed 10/27/22 Page 9 of 38
`
`
`
`United States v. Kozoil,
`993 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2021) ...........................................................................................19
`
`United States v. Lew,
`875 F.2d 219 (9th Cir. 1989) .............................................................................................15
`
`United States v. McFall,
`558 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2009) .......................................................................................19, 20
`
`United States v. Miller,
`953 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1085 (2021) ................................17
`
`United States v. Turkette,
`452 U.S. 576 (1981) .......................................................................................................9, 11
`
`Vertkin v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage,
`2011 WL 175518 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2011) ......................................................................10
`
`Westchester County Independence Party v. Astorino,
`137 F. Supp. 3d 586 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)................................................................................14
`
`Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co.,
`618 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2010) ...............................................................................................9
`
`Yates v. United States,
`354 U.S. 298 (1957) ...........................................................................................................22
`
`Zimmerman v. Facebook, Inc.,
`2020 WL 5877863 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2020)......................................................................25
`
`DOCKETED CASES
`
`Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`No. 1:18-cv-02030-TNM (D.D.C. Dec. 6, 2018) ................................................................5
`
`Loomer v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 50-2020-CA-002352-XXXX-MB (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. 2020) .........................................6
`
`Loomer v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 9:19-cv-80893-RS (S.D. Fla. July 8, 2019) ..................................................................6
`
`Loomer v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 9:20-cv-80484-DMM (S.D. Fla. Mar. 24, 2020) ..........................................................6
`
`Loomer v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 4:20-cv-03154-HSG (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2020) ...........................................................6
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02646-LB
`
`viii
`
`META DEFS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. TO
`DISMISS AM. COMPL.; MEMO. ISO
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 80 Filed 10/27/22 Page 10 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`STATUTES, RULES, AND REGULATIONS
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1951 ............................................................................................................................18
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1952 ............................................................................................................................18
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1961 ......................................................................................................................21, 22
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2339B ...................................................................................................................20, 21
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2385 ............................................................................................................................21
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ........................................................................................................................15
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)....................................................................................................................1
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Birnbaum, Twitter Takes Down Hamas, Hezbollah-Affiliated Accounts After
`Lawmaker Pressure, The Hill (Nov. 4, 2019),
`https://thehill.com/policy/technology/468866-twitter-takes-down-hamas-
`hezbollah-affiliated-accounts-after-lawmaker ...................................................................21
`
`Bokhari, Politicians Won’t Be Allowed on Facebook If They’ve Previously Been Banned,
`Breitbart (Nov. 14, 2019), https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/11/14/politicians-
`wont-be-allowed-on-facebook-if-theyve-previously-been-banned .....................................5
`
`Boyle, Facebook’s Updated Advertising Policy Could Enable Politicians To Spread
`Misinformation, Newsweek (Oct. 3, 2019), https://www.newsweek.com/trump-
`biden-facebook-misleading-ads-1463054 ..........................................................................16
`
`Facebook, Terms of Service, https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms .....................................3, 4, 5
`
`Frenkel & Hubbard, After Social Media Bans, Militant Groups Found Ways to Remain, N.Y.
`Times (Apr. 19, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/technology/terrorist-
`groups-social-media.html...................................................................................................21
`
`Hern, Facebook Exempts Political Ads From Ban On Making False Claims, Guardian
`(Oct. 4, 2019), https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/04/facebook-
`exempts-political-ads-ban-making-false-claims ................................................................16
`
`Lee, Facebook bans ‘dangerous individuals,” BBC News (May 3, 2019),
`https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-48142098..............................................................4
`
`Martin, Zuckerberg Tells Fox News Facebook Won’t Censor Politicians, While Warren
`Says Facebook Could Help Trump Win Again, Newsweek (Oct. 17, 2019),
`https://www.newsweek.com/zuckerberg-tells-fox-news-facebook-wont-censor-
`politicians-while-warren-says-facebook-could-help-1466117) .........................................16
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02646-LB
`
`ix
`
`META DEFS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. TO
`DISMISS AM. COMPL.; MEMO. ISO
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 80 Filed 10/27/22 Page 11 of 38
`
`
`
`Meta Transparency Center, Dangerous Individuals and Organizations,
`https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/dangerous-individuals-
`organizations ........................................................................................................................3
`
`Meta Transparency Center, Facebook Community Standards, https://
`transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards............................................................3
`
`Meta Transparency Center, Hate Speech, https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-
`standards/hate-speech ..........................................................................................................3
`
`Ortutay, Facebook bans ‘dangerous individuals’ cited for hate speech, Associated
`Press (May 3, 2019), https://apnews.com/article/alex-jones-north-america-
`ap-top-news-sc-state-wire-ca-state-wire-
`7825d0df3fda4799a78da92b9e969cdc ................................................................................4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02646-LB
`
`x
`
`META DEFS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. TO
`DISMISS AM. COMPL.; MEMO. ISO
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 80 Filed 10/27/22 Page 12 of 38
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, on January 26, 2023 at 9:30 am or as soon thereafter as
`the matter may be heard, in Courtroom B of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
`California, San Francisco Division, this Motion to Dismiss will be heard. Meta Platforms, Inc. and
`Mark Zuckerberg move to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 12(b)(6). This Motion to Dismiss is based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum
`of Points and Authorities, and the supporting Declaration of Emily Barnet.
`STATEMENT OF REQUESTED RELIEF
`The Court should dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice.
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`This is Laura Loomer’s fourth lawsuit, and sixth complaint, challenging Meta’s decisions
`to suspend and then ban her from Facebook for violating its policies against hate speech and
`dangerous individuals and organizations. On August 8, 2022, Meta and its CEO Mr. Zuckerberg
`(collectively “Meta”) moved to dismiss this action because it is precluded by res judicata, fails to
`state a claim, and is barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Loomer’s
`Amended Complaint does not attempt to cure any of those defects. Instead, it doubles down on the
`outlandish theory that, by removing content like Loomer’s pursuant to its policies, Meta
`“advocat[ed] the overthrow of [the] government,” Am. Compl. ¶ 37, and committed other “illegal
`predicate acts” as part of a racketeering enterprise with defendants Twitter and its former CEO
`Jack Dorsey (collectively “Twitter”), Proctor & Gamble (“P&G”), and unnamed culprits within
`the FBI and “corporate America,” id. The Amended Complaint is long on salacious and frequently
`non-sensical allegations but short on allegations that would support a viable RICO claim. Her
`claims against Meta and Mr. Zuckerberg fail for several, independent reasons.
`First, Loomer’s claims are barred by res judicata. She previously stipulated to a with-
`prejudice dismissal of a suit raising claims based on the removal of her Facebook account. She
`cannot recycle those same claims here under the guise of a RICO suit. Second, Loomer’s RICO
`claims suffer from numerous independent and incurable defects. RICO must be narrowly construed
`here because the challenged conduct—Meta’s exercise of editorial control and judgment over the
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02646-LB
`1
`META DEFS.’ NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. TO
`DISMISS AM. COMPL.; MEMO. ISO
`
`
`