Case 3:21-cv-08017-EMC Document 30 Filed 12/20/21 Page 1 of 44
`
`
`
`KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
`BENJAMIN BERKOWITZ - # 244441
`bberkowitz@keker.com
`KHARI J. TILLERY - # 215669
`ktillery@keker.com
`ANJALI SRINIVASAN - # 304413
`asrinivasan@keker.com
`RYLEE KERCHER OLM - # 318550
`rolm@keker.com
`YENA LEE - # 332190
`ylee@keker.com
`633 Battery Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
`Telephone:
`415 391 5400
`Facsimile:
`415 397 7188
`
`Attorneys for Defendant TWITTER, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`
` Case No. 3:21-cv-08017-EMC
`
`DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Dept:
`Judge:
`
`March 3, 2022
`1:30 p.m.
`Courtroom 5 – 17th Floor
`Hon. Edward M. Chen
`
`Date Filed: October 13, 2021
`Trial Date: None Set
`
`ALI AL-AHMED,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TWITTER, INC.; ALI HAMAD A
`ALZABARAH; and AHMAD ABOUAMMO,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`1757354
`
`DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:21-cv-08017-EMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08017-EMC Document 30 Filed 12/20/21 Page 2 of 44
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Al-Ahmed is a well-known and public critic of the KSA and, as a result of
`his public criticism, was the subject of harassment by the KSA. ............................3
`
`In 2014, the KSA recruited Abouammo and Alzabarah to gain access to
`Twitter account information. ...................................................................................4
`
`Twitter informed individuals whose accounts may have been compromised. ........5
`
`Al-Ahmed did not personally suffer harm as a result of the KSA’s
`espionage at Twitter. ................................................................................................5
`
`Al-Ahmed’s Arabic-language Twitter account was suspended in May 2018. ........6
`
`III.
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Al-Ahmed v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04982-VEC (S.D.N.Y.) ....................6
`
`Abdulaziz v. Twitter, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-06694-LB (N.D. Cal.) .............6
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................................................................................8
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................8
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................8
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Al-Ahmed fails to establish Article III standing to pursue claims against
`Twitter related to the alleged 2014-2015 KSA espionage. ......................................8
`
`Nearly all of Al-Ahmed’s causes of action should be dismissed as time-
`barred. ....................................................................................................................11
`
`
`
`
`
`Al-Ahmed was notified of the unauthorized intrusion of his Twitter
`account more than five years before he filed this suit. ..............................11
`
`Al-Ahmed waited more than three years after his account
`suspension before initiating this action. .....................................................12
`
`C.
`
`Twitter is not vicariously liable for the KSA’s conduct. .......................................13
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`
`
`Twitter did not aid or abet Abouammo and Alzabarah..............................13
`
`Twitter did not ratify Abouammo and Alzabarah’s misconduct. ..............14
`
`CDA Section 230(c)(1) bars Al-Ahmed’s account suspension-related
`claims. ....................................................................................................................15
`
`Twitter’s Limitation of Liability Clause contained within its Terms of
`Service bars many of Al-Ahmed’s claims. ............................................................17
`i
`DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:21-cv-08017-EMC
`
`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
`
`1757354
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08017-EMC Document 30 Filed 12/20/21 Page 3 of 44
`
`
`
`F.
`
`Al-Ahmed’s causes of action each fail for additional, independent reasons. ........18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Al-Ahmed fails to allege that Twitter violated the Wiretap Act as
`amended by the ECPA. ..............................................................................18
`
`Al-Ahmed fails to plead a claim under the SCA. ......................................20
`
`Al-Ahmed fails to plead a CFAA claim against Twitter. ..........................21
`
`Al-Ahmed’s UCL claim fails as a matter of law. ......................................23
`
`Al-Ahmed’s claim for unjust enrichment fails as a matter of law. ............26
`
`Al-Ahmed fails to plead any breach of contract by Twitter. .....................26
`
`Al-Ahmed cannot bring a claim for promissory estoppel. .........................27
`
`Al-Ahmed fails to meet the threshold elements required to state a
`claim for intrusion upon seclusion. ............................................................28
`
`Al-Ahmed fails to plead facts necessary to support his negligent
`hiring, supervision, and retention claim. ....................................................29
`
`Al-Ahmed’s negligence claims should be dismissed for the
`additional reason that he has failed to adequately plead proximate
`causation. ...................................................................................................30
`
`There is no separate cause of action for civil conspiracy. .........................31
`
`Al-Ahmed’s allegations regarding his suspended account fail to
`state a claim for replevin. ...........................................................................31
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................32
`
`
`
`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
`
`ii
`DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:21-cv-08017-EMC
`
`1757354
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08017-EMC Document 30 Filed 12/20/21 Page 4 of 44
`
`
`
`Federal Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Abdulaziz v. Twitter, Inc.,
`Case No. 3:19-cv-06694-LB, 2020 WL 6947929 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2020) ................. passim
`
`Abdulaziz v. Twitter, Inc.,
`Case No. 3:19-cv-06694-LB, 2021 WL 2986400 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2021) ................7, 10, 31
`
`Abdulaziz v. Twitter, Inc.,
`Case No. 3:19-cv-06694-LB, 2021 WL 633812 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2021) ..................7, 12, 30
`
`Al-Ahmed v. Twitter, Inc.,
`Case No. 1:20-cv-04982-VEC, 2021 WL 3604577 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2021) ....................6, 7
`
`Am. Freedom Def. Initiative v. Lynch,
`217 F. Supp. 3d 100 (D.D.C. 2016) .........................................................................................16
`
`Andrews v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.,
`932 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2019) .................................................................................................23
`
`In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig.,
`386 F. Supp. 3d 1115 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ...................................................................................25
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................8, 13, 30, 31
`
`Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,
`783 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................26
`
`Bank of New York v. Fremont Gen. Corp.,
`523 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................32
`
`Bass v. Facebook, Inc.,
`394 F. Supp. 3d 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ...................................................................................18
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................8
`
`Bennett v. Google, LLC,
`882 F.3d 1163 (D.C. Cir. 2018) ...............................................................................................17
`
`Boon Rawd Trading Int’l Co. v. Paleewong Trading Co.,
`688 F. Supp. 2d 940 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .....................................................................................11
`
`Boruta v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
`No. 19-CV- 03164-WHO, 2019 WL 4010367 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2019) .............................13
`iii
`DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:21-cv-08017-EMC
`
`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
`
`1757354
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08017-EMC Document 30 Filed 12/20/21 Page 5 of 44
`
`
`
`Brittain v. Twitter, Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-00114-YGR, 2019 WL 2423375 (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2019) ................................16
`
`Brodsky v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-00712, 2019 WL 4141936 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2019) .........................................25
`
`Butera & Andrews v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp.,
`456 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D.D.C. 2006) .........................................................................................20
`
`Cahen v. Toyota Motor Corp.,
`147 F. Supp. 3d 955 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .....................................................................................28
`
`Calhoun v. Google LLC,
`526 F. Supp. 3d 605 (N.D. Cal. 2021) .........................................................................11, 20, 21
`
`Chevron Corp. v. Donziger,
`No. 12-MC-80237 CRB (NC), 2013 WL 4536808 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2013) ......................29
`
`CRV Imperial-Worthington, LP v. Gemini Ins. Co.,
`770 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (S.D. Cal. 2010) ....................................................................................32
`
`Darnaa, LLC v. Google LLC,
`756 F. App’x 674 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................18
`
`Doe v. Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center,
`Case No. CIV. 00-100-M, 2001 WL 873063 (D.N.H. July 19, 2001) .....................................22
`
`Ewert v. eBay, Inc.,
`602 F. App’x 357 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................26
`
`In re Facebook Internet Tracking Litig.,
`263 F. Supp. 3d 836 (9th Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................28
`
`In re Facebook Privacy Litig.,
`791 F. Supp. 2d 705 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .....................................................................................23
`
`Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC,
`521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................17
`
`Fields v. Twitter, Inc.,
`200 F. Supp. 3d 964 (N.D. Cal. 2016) .....................................................................................16
`
`G.S. Rasmussen & Assocs., Inc. v. Kalitta Flying Serv., Inc.,
`958 F.2d 896 (9th Cir. 1992) ...................................................................................................32
`
`Garamendi v. SDI Vendome S.A.,
`276 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (C.D. Cal. 2003) .............................................................................11, 12
`
`Gonzales v. Uber Tech., Inc.,
`305 F. Supp. 3d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ...................................................................................19
`
`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
`
`iv
`DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:21-cv-08017-EMC
`
`1757354
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08017-EMC Document 30 Filed 12/20/21 Page 6 of 44
`
`
`
`In re Google Location History Litig.,
`428 F. Supp. 3d 185 .................................................................................................................28
`
`In re Google, Inc. Privacy Policy Litigation,
`2013 WL 6248499 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2013) ...........................................................................20
`
`Ice Cream Distribs. Of Evansville, LLC v. Dryer’s Grand Ice Cream Inc.,
`487 Fed. App’x 362 (9th Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................24
`
`Kaldis v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`263 F. Supp. 3d 856 (C.D. Cal. 2017) .....................................................................................11
`
`Karimian v. Caliber Home Loans Inc.,
`No. CV 13–07034 CAS, 2013 WL 5947966 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2013) ..................................11
`
`Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.,
`302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................18
`
`Letizia v. Facebook Inc.,
`267 F. Supp. 3d 1235 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ...................................................................................26
`
`Low v. LinkedIn Corp.,
`900 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ...................................................................................29
`
`Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,
`504 U.S. 555 (1992) .........................................................................................................8, 9, 10
`
`Mintel Learning Tech., Inc. v. Beijing Kaidi Educ.,
`No. C 06 7541 PJH, 2007 WL 2288329 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2007) .........................................31
`
`Mintz v. Mark Bartelstein & Assocs. Inc.,
`906 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (C.D. Cal. 2012) ...................................................................................19
`
`Native Vill. of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.,
`663 F. Supp. 2d 863 (N.D. Cal. 2009) .....................................................................................31
`
`NetApp, Inc. v. Nimble Storage, Inc.,
`41 F. Supp. 3d 816 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .......................................................................................23
`
`Nichols v. Brown,
`859 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (C.D. Cal. 2012) ...................................................................................10
`
`Novak v. United States,
`795 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................10
`
`NovelPoster v. Javitch Canfield Group,
`140 F. Supp. 3d 938 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ...............................................................................19, 25
`
`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
`
`v
`DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:21-cv-08017-EMC
`
`1757354
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08017-EMC Document 30 Filed 12/20/21 Page 7 of 44
`
`
`
`Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC,
`481 F.3d 751 (9th Cir. 2007), opinion amended and superseded on denial of
`reh’g, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007) .......................................................................................15
`
`Ramos v. Los Rios Community College District,
`No. CV 2:17-1458 WBS KJN, 2018 WL 626381 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2018)...........................14
`
`Razuki v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-1718LAB(WVG), 2018 WL 2761818 (S.D. Cal. June 8, 2018) ............................29
`
`Ruiz v. Gap, Inc.,
`540 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ...................................................................................29
`
`Sharpe v. Puritan’s Pride, Inc.,
`466 F. Supp. 3d 1066 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ...................................................................................23
`
`Sikhs for Just. “SFJ”, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`144 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ...................................................................................16
`
`Sloan v. Gen. Motors LLC,
`No. 16-CV-07244-EMC, 2020 WL 1955643 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020) ................................26
`
`SolarCity Corp. v. Pure Solar Co.,
`No. CV1601814BRODTBX, 2016 WL 11019989 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2016) ........................22
`
`Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,
`136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), as revised (May 24, 2016) .............................................................9, 10
`
`St. Claire v. Gilead Scis., Inc. (In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig.),
`536 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................8
`
`Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`188 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................24
`
`Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Victor,
`43 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ...............................................................................25, 28
`
`Svenson v. Google Inc.,
`2015 WL 1503429 (N.D. Cal. April 1, 2015) ..........................................................................19
`
`In re Toys R Us, Inc., Priv. Litig.,
`No. 00-CV-2746, 2001 WL 34517252 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2001) ............................................20
`
`United States v. Abouammo, et al.,
`Case No. 3:19-cr-000621-EMC (N.D. Cal.) .................................................................... passim
`
`United States v. Nosal,
`676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................................22
`
`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
`
`vi
`DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:21-cv-08017-EMC
`
`1757354
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08017-EMC Document 30 Filed 12/20/21 Page 8 of 44
`
`
`
`Vista Mktg., LLC v. Burkett,
`999 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (M.D. Fla. 2014) ...................................................................................21
`
`Warth v. Seldin,
`422 U.S. 490 (1975) .................................................................................................................10
`
`Wasson v. Sonoma Cty. Jr. Coll. Dist.,
`4 F. Supp. 2d 893 (N.D. Cal. 1997) .........................................................................................29
`
`Williamson v. McAfee, Inc.,
`No. 5:14-CV-00158-EJD, 2014 WL 4220824 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .......................................24, 25
`
`Wilson v. Twitter,
`No. 3:20-CV-00054, 2020 WL 3410349 (S.D. W.Va. May 1, 2020)................................16, 17
`
`In re Yahoo Mail Litig.,
`7 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .......................................................................................28
`
`In re Zynga Privacy Litig.,
`750 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................19
`
`State Cases
`
`Applied Equip. Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd.,
`7 Cal. 4th 503 (1994) ...............................................................................................................31
`
`Belton v. Comcast Cable Holdings,
`151 Cal. App. 4th 1224 (2007) ................................................................................................25
`
`Berkley v. Dowds,
`152 Cal. App. 4th 518 (2007) ..................................................................................................31
`
`C.R. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp.,
`169 Cal. App. 4th 1094 (2009) ................................................................................................14
`
`Casey v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n,
`127 Cal. App. 4th 1138 (2005) ................................................................................................13
`
`Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.,
`145 Cal. App. 4th 790 (2006) ..................................................................................................14
`
`Doe v. Capital Cities,
`50 Cal. App. 4th 1038 (1996) ..................................................................................................30
`
`Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. v. CMC Fabricators, Inc.,
`211 Cal. App. 4th 230 (2012) ..................................................................................................27
`
`Durell v. Sharp Healthcare,
`183 Cal. App. 4th 1350 (2010) ................................................................................................23
`
`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
`
`vii
`DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:21-cv-08017-EMC
`
`1757354
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08017-EMC Document 30 Filed 12/20/21 Page 9 of 44
`
`
`
`Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA,
`198 Cal. App. 4th 256 (2011) ..................................................................................................27
`
`Food Safety Net Servs. v. Eco Safe Sys. USA, Inc.,
`209 Cal. App. 4th 1118 (2012) ................................................................................................18
`
`Foster v. Sexton,
`61 Cal. App. 5th 998 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) ..............................................................................31
`
`Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.,
`35 Cal. 4th 797 (2005) .............................................................................................................12
`
`Hernandez v. Hillsdale,
`47 Cal. 4th 272 (2009) .............................................................................................................29
`
`Howard v. Super. Ct.,
`2 Cal. App. 4th 745 (1992) ......................................................................................................13
`
`Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`44 Cal. 3d 1103 (1988) ............................................................................................................12
`
`Juarez v. Boy Scouts of Am., Inc.,
`81 Cal. App. 4th 377 (2000) ....................................................................................................30
`
`Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc.,
`14 Cal. App. 4th 612 (1993) ....................................................................................................25
`
`Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
`29 Cal. 4th 1134 (2003) ...........................................................................................................23
`
`Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct.,
`51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011) .............................................................................................................23
`
`Lewis v. YouTube, LLC,
`244 Cal. App. 4th 118 (2015) ..................................................................................................18
`
`Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Mem’l Hosp.,
`12 Cal. 4th 291 (1995) .............................................................................................................15
`
`Maheu v. CBS, Inc.,
`201 Cal. App. 3d (1988) .........................................................................................................11
`
`Mahru v. Superior Ct.,
`191 Cal. App. 3d 545 (1987) ...................................................................................................25
`
`Mendoza v. City of Los Angeles,
`66 Cal. App. 4th 1333 (1998) ..................................................................................................31
`
`Murphy v. Twitter, Inc.,
`60 Cal. App. 5th 12 (2021) ......................................................................................................17
`
`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
`
`viii
`DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:21-cv-08017-EMC
`
`1757354
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08017-EMC Document 30 Filed 12/20/21 Page 10 of 44
`
`
`
`So v. Shin,
`212 Cal. App. 4th 652 (2013) ..................................................................................................11
`
`US Ecology, Inc. v. State of California,
`129 Cal. App. 4th 887 (2005) ..................................................................................................27
`
`Yvanova v. New Cent. Mortg. Corp.,
`62 Cal. 4th 919 (2016) .............................................................................................................27
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1030 .................................................................................................................... passim
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2510 ......................................................................................................................18, 19
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2511 ......................................................................................................................18, 20
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2520 ........................................................................................................................8, 11
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2701 ......................................................................................................................20, 21
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2707 ........................................................................................................................8, 11
`
`47 U.S.C. § 230 ..............................................................................................................2, 15, 16, 17
`
`State Statutes
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 ....................................................................................................23
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208 ................................................................................................8, 11
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1668 ....................................................................................................................18
`
`Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 337(a) ....................................................................................................11
`
`Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 338 ..................................................................................................11, 12
`
`Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 339(1) ...................................................................................................11
`
`Cal. Penal Code § 502 ....................................................................................................................25
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ........................................................................................................................24
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) ........................................................................................................................8
`
`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
`
`ix
`DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:21-cv-08017-EMC
`
`1757354
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08017-EMC Document 30 Filed 12/20/21 Page 11 of 44
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Ali Al-Ahmed, Saudi Solidarity and the “Ground Zero Mosque” (Aug. 29, 2010),
`https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/aug/27/ground-
`zero-mosque-saudi-arabia ..........................................................................................................3
`
`St. Thomas Magazine Halts Profile of Saudi Alum, Twin Cities Pioneer Press
`(Sept. 25, 2009), https://www.twincities.com/2009/09/25/st-thomas-magazine-
`halts-profile-of-saudi-alum/ .......................................................................................................3
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`x
`DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:21-cv-08017-EMC
`
`1757354
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08017-EMC Document 30 Filed 12/20/21 Page 12 of 44
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 3, 2022, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as this
`
`matter can be heard, in the courtroom of the Honorable Edward M. Chen, located at 450 Golden
`
`Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Defendant Twitter, Inc. moves this Court for an order
`
`dismissing Plaintiff Ali Al-Ahmed’s Complaint with prejudice in its entirety as to Twitter.
`
`This motion is brought pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure on the grounds that the Plaintiff lacks Article III standing and that the Complaint
`
`fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This motion is based on this Notice of
`
`Motion and Motion, the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Twitter’s Request for
`
`Judicial Notice in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (“RJN”), the
`
`Declaration of Anjali Srinivasan in Support of Twitter’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint
`
`and accompanying exhibits, including the Declaration of Twitter Employee in Support of
`
`Twitter’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, all files, records, and orders in this action, oral
`
`argument, and such additional matters as may be judicially noticed or incorporated by reference
`
`by the Court or may come before the Court prior to or at the hearing on this matter.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION1
`
`Plaintiff Ali Al-Ahmed’s Complaint comes two years after a nearly identical action filed
`
`against Twitter by another Saudi dissident, Omar Abdulaziz, regarding alleged state-sponsored
`
`espionage perpetrated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (“KSA”) against Twitter and certain of its
`
`accountholders. See Abdulaziz v. Twitter, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-06694-LB (N.D. Cal.).
`
`Al-Ahmed’s material factual allegations and the majority of his claims are taken directly from the
`
`Abdulaziz complaint, in a number of instances verbatim. The Abdulaziz court dismissed these
`
`claims for numerous, overlapping reasons in three successive orders granting Twitter’s motions to
`
`dismiss, ultimately with prejudice. The same result should apply here. The only material addition
`
`
`1 Throughout this brief, all emphases within quotations are added and all internal citations are
`omitted unless otherwise noted.
`
`1
`DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:21-cv-08017-EMC
`
`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
`
`1757354
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08017-EMC Document 30 Filed 12/20/21 Page 13 of 44
`
`
`
`to Al-Ahmed’s complaint are unrelated claims regarding Twitter’s suspension of one of his
`
`accounts in 2018 as the result of abusive comments made by Al-Ahmed against other Twitter
`
`users. This separate set of claims should be dismissed as well, including because the claims are
`
`barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”).
`
`In 2014 and 2015, Twitter and certain of its accountholders were victims of KSA-
`
`sponsored espionage. The KSA allegedly recruited two Twitter employees, Ali Alzabarah and
`
`Ahmad Abouammo, to access Twitter account information without the knowledge or
`
`authorization of Twitter or the accountholders. In December 2015, upon learning that its
`
`employees may have been compromised by a foreign government, Twitter took steps to protect its
`
`accountholders, including terminating Alzabarah’s access to Twitter’s computer systems, seizing
`
`his laptop, and physically escorting him out of the building. Abouammo had already resigned
`
`from Twitter months earlier. Thereafter, Twitter cooperated with the Federal Bureau of
`
`Investigation (“FBI”) and U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) investigation into the incident.
`
`Twitter also sent notices to individuals whose accounts had potentially been accessed, including
`
`multiple notices to Plaintiff Al-Ahmed. On November 5, 2019, the DOJ filed a criminal
`
`complaint against Alzabarah, Abouammo, and a third individual who aided the KSA in its efforts
`
`to illegally access Twitter account information. This lawsuit comes more than five years after
`
`Twitter discovered and stopped the KSA’s activities, more than five years after Twitter notified
`
`Al-Ahmed of the unauthorized intrusion of his account, and more than three years after the
`
`suspension of one of Al-Ahmed’s Twitter accounts (an event unrelated to the KSA’s espionage).
`
`Al-Ahmed’s Complaint fails to state a claim and should be dismissed in its entirety
`
`against Twitter for numerous, independent reasons. First, Al-Ahmed lacks Article III standing to
`
`pursue any claims against Twitter based on the KSA’s alleged espionage because the Complaint
`
`fails to plead an injury-in-fact that is fairly traceable to Twitter’s conduct