Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01224/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01224-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

Case No.: 15-cv-01224-NC

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROY A. DAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOOGLE INC.; LARRY PAGE,

Defendants.

Case No.15-cv-01224-NC 

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS REQUEST AND 

DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2

Plaintiff Roy Day filed his Complaint and Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (“IFP”) on March 16, 2015. Dkt. Nos. 1, 2. Plaintiff has consented to this 

Court’s jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 5. The Court DENIES Day’s application to proceed In 

Forma Pauperis because it fails to state a claim and DISMISSES his complaint without 

leave to amend for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

I. BACKGROUND

Roy’s complaint states two causes of action, (1) a claim for “gross negligence,” and 

(2) a claim for emotional distress. Dkt. No. 1 at 2, 10. Roy’s claims are based on his 

purchase of a Google Nexus 9 tablet on February 5, 2015 for $427.99. Id. at 2-3. 

Although difficult to navigate his assertions, it appears his chief complaint is that the 

device did not come with a user manual, which caused him a “loss of money, and time, and 

productivity.” Id. at 3. He asserts that as a result, “Defendants are forcing and coercing 

Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, to telephone Defendant’s ‘G’s’ technical support.” 

Case 5:15-cv-01224-NC Document 8 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 6
Case No.:15-cv-01224-NC 2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Id. at 4. Roy asserts that such conduct “needlessly and unnecessarily cost Plaintiff time 

and money, and productivity.” Id. at 7. Roy brings this claim against Google, Inc. and 

Larry Page, Google’s Chief Executive Officer. Id. at 1, 2. 

As to claim one of negligence, Roy claims that he has been damaged in the sum of 

five-million dollars. Id. Additionally, he asserts that defendants’ actions were intentional, 

and that he has “suffered great mental plain and suffering with fright, chagrin, 

embarrassment, anger, nausea, nightmares, difficulty sleeping and his social life destroyed 

in the sum of twenty million dollars.” Id. at 8. Finally, he claims exemplary damages in 

the amount of one-hundred million dollars to deter defendants. Id.

In count two, Roy asserts a cause of action for emotional distress based on the same 

assertions. Id at 10. For the emotional distress claim, Roy asks for damages in the amount 

of twenty-million dollars. Id.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Day’s Application To Proceed IFP Is Frivolous.

Any person seeking to commence a civil suit in district court must pay a filing fee 

of $350 and an administrative fee of $50. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A district court has the 

authority to waive these fees for any person who shows in an affidavit that he or she is 

unable to pay it. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). A district court must dismiss the complaint of an 

IFP applicant if it determines that the complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune 

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). To make this determination, courts assess 

whether there is a factual and legal basis for the asserted wrong, “however inartfully 

pleaded.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Further, district 

courts have the authority to dismiss complaints founded on “wholly fanciful” factual 

allegations for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 1228. 

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the complaint set 

forth a “short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.” 

Rule 8(e) requires that each averment of a pleading be “simple, concise, and direct.” See 

Case 5:15-cv-01224-NC Document 8 Filed 04/06/15 Page 2 of 6
Case No.:15-cv-01224-NC 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of 

complaint that was “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely 

irrelevant”). In addition, the complaint must include facts which are “more than labels and 

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007). In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 

680 (2009), the Supreme Court rejected conclusory assertions that “petitioners ‘knew of, 

condoned, and willfully and maliciously agreed to subject [him]’ to harsh conditions of 

confinement ‘as a matter of policy, solely on the account of [his] religion, race, and/or 

national origin and for no legitimate penological interest.’” There, the Court reasoned that 

such allegations were akin to the “formulaic recitation of the elements” dismissed in 

Twombly, and therefore, insufficient to meet Rule 8(a). Id. 

Here, the complaint includes very few facts, but rather relies on general complaints 

and conclusory statements. Dkt. No. 1. For example, Day does not provide the dates or 

content of any phone calls with Google support, and does not specify the facts of any 

actual harm caused to him by such interaction. Id. at 3-4. Although the Court sympathizes 

with the often frustrating nature of automated technical support, general frustration cannot 

serve as a legal basis for a cause of action. 

The complaint uses legal language and sets forth, in various parts, the elements of a 

negligence claim. Id. For example, Day asserts that “by virtue of the willful, intentional, 

wanton, reckless, malicious, gross ‘negligent’ conduct of Defendants, as aforesaid, and as 

a proximate result thereof, Plaintiff has been damaged in the sum certain of Five Million 

Dollars.” Id. at 7. Day incorporates Larry Page as an additional defendant with the 

language, “[e]ach and all acts of Defendant ‘LP,’ set forth herein, were done by Defendant 

‘LP,’ acting individually and in concert under pretense and by virtue of, and under 

authority of Defendant ‘LP’s’ office as ‘CEO’ of Defendant ‘G.’” Id. at 2. The complaint 

provides no further facts as to Page’s personal involvement in or oversight of Day’s 

alleged harms. The Court finds that Day’s use of legal assertions to be nearly identical to 

those rejected in both Iqbal and Twombly, and therefore, amount to an inappropriate 

Case 5:15-cv-01224-NC Document 8 Filed 04/06/15 Page 3 of 6
Case No.:15-cv-01224-NC 4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action. 

Finally, Day’s assertion that he has suffered damages in the millions is based on 

nothing but his allegations that his device lacks a user manual and that he has spent some 

time navigating Google’s automated help service. Dkt. No. 1. Day asserts no facts to 

support any monetary recovery, except possibly the $427.99 value of the Google Nexus 9 

tablet. Id. at 3. 

Taken together, the Court finds Day’s complaint to be frivolous and fails to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. Therefore, the Court denies Day’s request to 

proceed In Forma Pauperis. 

B. The Complaint Is Dismissed Without Leave to Amend For Lack of Subject 

Matter Jurisdiction.

Dismissal under the IFP statute is not a dismissal on the merits and “does not 

prejudice the filing of a paid complaint making the same allegations.” Denton v. 

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992). “A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or 

her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, unless it is absolutely clear that the 

deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Cato v. United States, 

70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Although leave to amend the 

complaint is generally preferred, “futile amendments should not be permitted.” KlamathLake Pharmaceutical Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bur., 701 F.2d 1276, 1292 (9th Cir. 

1983) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).

In most cases, original federal subject jurisdiction may be premised on two grounds: 

(1) diversity jurisdiction, or (2) federal question jurisdiction. District courts have diversity 

jurisdiction over “all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or 

value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs” and the action is between citizens of 

different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “While a federal court must of course give due credit 

to the good faith claims of the plaintiff, a court would be remiss in its obligations if it 

accepted every claim of damages at face value, no matter how trivial the underlying 

injury.” Diefenthal v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 681 F.2d 1039, 1052 (5th Cir. 1982); See also 

Case 5:15-cv-01224-NC Document 8 Filed 04/06/15 Page 4 of 6
Case No.:15-cv-01224-NC 5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Christensen v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 633 F.2d 529 (9th Cir. 1980) (affirming dismissal 

on ground that injury was to small to establish requisite amount of damages). Therefore, 

“if, from the face of the pleadings, it is apparent, to a legal certainty, that the plaintiff 

cannot recover the amount claimed . . . the suit will be dismissed.” St. Paul Mercury 

Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938); Crum v. Circus Circus Enterprises, 

231 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Day has alleged causes of action for negligence and emotional distress, and no 

claims that arise under federal laws. Dkt. No. 1 at 2, 10. The complaint states that Day is 

a resident of Florida, the defendant corporation is a California corporation with its 

principal place of business in California, and defendant Page is a resident of California. Id. 

at 1, 2. Although the parties are properly diverse, for the reasons discussed above, the 

Court finds that the complaint’s allegations do not support the conclusion that Day is 

entitled to relief in the millions of dollars. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Even assuming that Day has 

adequately pled a claim for negligence and emotional distress, the base cause of his 

concern is that the $427.99 tablet does not come with a user manual. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. 

However, the complaint also states that “Plaintiff is very pleased with the Nexus 9” and 

that the tablet “functions properly.” Id. Therefore, it appears that Day is not asking for 

monetary recovery for the device itself. 

The Court believes that even a properly pled complaint would not meet the 

minimum threshold of $75,000 in controversy. Day purchased the tablet on February 5, 

2015, approximately six weeks before filing the present action in federal court. Dkt. No. 1 

at 2. He claims to have accrued unspecified financial harms since that date for the 

inconvenience caused by the lack of user manual. Id. The Court is unaware of any 

California law that could form the basis of recovery for such action, unless the tablet was 

inherently dangerous or caused some physical harm to Day under a products liability 

theory, which he does not allege. See Restatement of Torts 2d §§ 388, 389, 395; Sabella v. 

Wisler, 377 P.2d 889 (Cal. 1963). Therefore, the Court finds that it is apparent to a legal 

certainty that Day cannot recover $75,000 on the basis of his claims, even if the complaint 

Case 5:15-cv-01224-NC Document 8 Filed 04/06/15 Page 5 of 6
Case No.:15-cv-01224-NC 6

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

were pled with more factual assertions. 

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the complaint WITHOUT LEAVE TO 

AMEND. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2015 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01224-NC Document 8 Filed 04/06/15 Page 6 of 6