Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06450/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06450-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THOMAS MODDEN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TICKETFLY, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 18-cv-06450-RS 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

I. INTRODUCTION 

This case arises from a dispute over the sale and subsequent revocation of a ticket to a 

musical concert in New York City. Pro se plaintiff Thomas Modden advances several state law 

claims flowing from Defendant Ticketfly’s revocation of his ticket and cancellation of his 

customer account. Ticketfly now moves for dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) 

with prejudice. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss is granted. Modden is 

granted leave to amend with respect to his claims for invasion of privacy and for breach of 

contract. Leave to amend is denied with respect to all other claims. 

II. BACKGROUND 

A. Factual Background 

The factual background of this case is set forth in large part in the Order Granting Motion 

to Dismiss and Denying Motion to Transfer issued on January 3, 2019. 

B. Procedural Background 

In June 2017, Modden filed suit against Ticketfly for defamation, sex discrimination, 

Case 3:18-cv-06450-RS Document 71 Filed 07/29/19 Page 1 of 9
CASE NO. 18-cv-06450-RS

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 Californi

a

invasion of privacy, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional 

distress, and restraint of trade. The action was removed to the Eastern District of New York and 

subsequently transferred to the Northern District of California, where Ticketfly moved to dismiss 

the complaint with prejudice. The initial complaint was dismissed with leave to amend on January 

3, 2019. Modden subsequently filed an Amended Complaint. It was later revealed that, although a 

copy of the January order was mailed to Modden, it was never successfully delivered. 

Accordingly, Modden was granted leave to file another amended complaint addressing the 

deficiency identified in that order. In April 2019, Modden filed the SAC, which once again alleges 

defamation, invasion of privacy, sex discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, 

negligent infliction of emotional distress, and unlawful restraint of trade. Modden also includes a 

new cause of action for breach of contract. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). While 

“detailed factual allegations” are not required, a complaint must have sufficient factual allegations 

to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(quoting Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A motion to dismiss under Rule 

12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the claims alleged in the complaint. See Parks Sch. of Bus., 

Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be 

based on either the “lack of a cognizable legal theory” or on “the absence of sufficient facts 

alleged” under a cognizable legal theory. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, 

718 F.3d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir. 2013). When evaluating such a motion, courts generally “accept all 

factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable 

to the nonmoving party.” Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). Courts, however, 

need not accept legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Threadbare recitals of the 

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.

Case 3:18-cv-06450-RS Document 71 Filed 07/29/19 Page 2 of 9
CASE NO. 18-cv-06450-RS

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 Californi

a

IV. DISCUSSION1

A. Defamation 

To state a claim for defamation under either California or New York law, a plaintiff must 

establish, among other things, that the defendant published a false statement about the plaintiff to a 

third party. See Sanders v. Walsh, 219 Cal. App. 4th 855, 862 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013); Thorsen v. 

Sons of Norway, 996 F. Supp. 2d 143, 163 (E.D.N.Y. 2014). Modden once again fails to allege 

facts tending to support such a finding. First, Modden does not plead facts tending to show 

Ticketfly made any false statements about him. The SAC states that Ticketfly defamed him by 

“inferring that his conduct would not be suitable at future Ticketfly events by terminating his 

account.” SAC 8.2 In his view, Ticketfly’s “assumption that [he] was guilty of unlawful conduct or 

moral turpitude” qualifies as a false statement about him. Id. In other words, Ticketfly’s “actions” 

were defamatory because of the “inference that [he] was a dangerous person and could not be 

trusted.” Id. 9. The act of cancelling Modden’s ticket, however, cannot be fairly characterized as a 

false statement. 

Second, Modden fails to plead facts tending to show any false statements were 

communicated to a third party. Instead, he bases his conclusion that Ticketfly defamed him on the 

fact that (1) the traffic to his Twitter page spike around the date his Ticketfly account was 

terminated, (2) Pandora, the “one time parent company” of Ticketfly, at some unspecified point in 

time removed his music from their website, and (3) that a music writer contacted him about the 

present lawsuit. While these facts perhaps suggest “rumors were circulating about [him],” id. 8, 

they do not suggest Ticketly was responsible for propagating this gossip, or that what was said 

 

1

 The parties agree California law applies to this dispute. Even if New York law were to apply, 

however, the outcome of this motion would be the same. As explained in the January 3, 2019 

order granting dismissal of the initial complaint, there is a significant amount of overlap in the 

requirements for each cause of action under California and New York law. 

2

 There appears to be an error in Modden’s pagination of the SAC. Accordingly, the SAC page 

numbers listed in this order are based on the PDF pagination rather than the numbers actually 

written on each page. 

Case 3:18-cv-06450-RS Document 71 Filed 07/29/19 Page 3 of 9
CASE NO. 18-cv-06450-RS

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 Californi

a

about him was false. Indeed, Modden admits that he does not know the substance of these alleged 

rumors. Id. 9 (“Whatever complaint[] [the band member] communicated to Ticketfly in regards to 

[Modden], it was extreme and egregious character assassination, yet false.”). Accordingly, this 

claim must be dismissed. 

Although leave to amend is granted liberally, it is clear based on the three complaints filed 

to date that Modden does not have any plausible basis for his belief that Ticketly made false 

statements about him to third parties. Under such circumstances, granting leave to amend would 

be futile. The defamation claim is therefore dismissed without leave to amend. 

B. Sex Discrimination 

Modden also fails to allege sufficient facts to support his allegation of sex discrimination. 

The SAC indicates Ticketfly revoked Modden’s ticket based on the band’s request. Modden 

believes Ticketfly assumed he was in the wrong because he is a man and accepted the band 

member’s version of events because she is a woman. Modden does not, however, point to any 

facts to support this assertion. Rather, he claims this is an example of res ipsa loquitur because 

“[i]n American society, we are basically trained to accommodate women [and] discriminat[] 

against men.” SAC 11. Modden’s unsupported belief that Ticketfly discriminated against him on 

the basis of sex is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. It is clear, based on Modden’s 

pleading and briefing to date, that he does not possess sufficient facts to support a discrimination 

claim and that granting leave to amend would be futile. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed 

without leave to amend. 

C. Negligent or Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 

Under California law, a plaintiff may establish intentional infliction of emotional distress 

by showing: (1) extreme or outrageous conduct by the defendant, (2) severe or extreme emotional 

distress by the plaintiff, (3) the defendant’s outrageous conduct proximately caused the plaintiff’s 

distress, and (4) the defendant intended to cause distress or acted with reckless disregard of the 

possibility of causing emotional harm. Christensen v. Superior Court, 54 Cal. 3d 868, 903 (Cal. 

1991) (quotation omitted). While California does not recognize an independent tort of negligent 

Case 3:18-cv-06450-RS Document 71 Filed 07/29/19 Page 4 of 9
CASE NO. 18-cv-06450-RS

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 Californi

a

infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff may recover under an ordinary negligence theory if the 

emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff is “serious” and there is a “guarantee of genuine[]” 

emotional harm under the circumstances. Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 6 Cal. 4th 965, 

986 (Cal. 1993). 

Ticketfly’s alleged actions fall short of the sort of outrageous conduct required to sustain a 

claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. To qualify as outrageous, a defendant’s 

conduct must be “so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized 

community.” Potter, 6 Cal. 4th at 1001 (quotation omitted). Modden’s complaint, at its heart, 

alleges Ticketfly revoked a concert ticket and cancelled his customer account without explanation. 

This conduct clearly does not qualify as extreme or outrageous. Even if Ticketfly’s conduct were 

extreme or outrageous, Modden fails plausibly to allege the company intended to cause severe 

emotional distress or acted with reckless disregard of the possibility of causing such distress. 

Modden’s negligence claim also fails. As explained in the January 3, 2019 order of 

dismissal, it is highly unforeseeable that a dispute over cancellation of concert tickets and 

deactivation of a customer ticketing account would result in severe emotional injury. Furthermore, 

the mere fact that a plaintiff may be displeased with a particular action, without more, does not 

impose upon the defendant a duty to refrain from otherwise lawful conduct. Accordingly, Modden 

again fails to state a claim based on either intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. 

Granting Modden leave to amend this claim for a third time would be futile, accordingly, both 

claims are dismissed without leave to amend.3

 

3

 The elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress under New York and California law 

are very similar. Under New York law, a plaintiff must show: (1) extreme or outrageous conduct, 

(2) intent to cause severe emotional distress, (3) a causal connection between the conduct and the 

injury, and (4) severe emotional distress. Fisk v. Letterman, 424 F. Supp. 2d 670, 676 (S.D.N.Y. 

2006). Accordingly, the outcome with respect to this claim would be the same under either state’s 

law. Furthermore, to state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress under New York 

law, a plaintiff must allege (1) the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, (2) breached that duty, 

(3) engaged in conduct that unreasonably endangered the plaintiff’s physical safety, (4) resulting 

in plaintiff’s emotional injury. Id. at 676-77. There is no indication Ticketfly endangered 

Modden’s physical safety, therefore this claim would also fail under New York law. 

Case 3:18-cv-06450-RS Document 71 Filed 07/29/19 Page 5 of 9
CASE NO. 18-cv-06450-RS

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 Californi

a

D. Unlawful Restraint of Trade 

To state a claim for unlawful restraint of trade under California law, a plaintiff must 

demonstrate: “(1) the formation and operation of the conspiracy; (2) illegal acts done pursuant 

thereto; and (3) damage proximately caused by such acts.” Kolling v. Dow Jones & Co., 137 Cal. 

App. 3d 709, 718 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982). In support of this claim, Modden accuses the band 

member who requested his absence, and with whom he allegedly had a “long distance situation,” 

of having an “emotional state” that was “unstable and sometimes even volatile.” SAC 12. He 

contends her “emotional condition,” combined with her alleged “desire to seek retribution” for 

Modden reporting her allegedly threat tweets about President Trump to law enforcement, 

motivated her to create a conspiracy against him. Id. He further alleges the band member informed 

Ticketfly that he had reported her and speculates that Ticketfly “could have become [a] coconspirator in political bias.” Id. These rather speculative allegations do not suggest the existence 

of a conspiracy to interfere with Modden’s business. Accordingly, Modden fails to state a claim 

for unlawful restraint of trade under California law. Modden’s inability to provide facts tending to 

show the existence of a conspiracy, despite amending his complaint twice, strongly suggests that 

granting leave to amend would be futile. Accordingly, the claim for unlawful restraint of trade is 

dismissed without leave to amend.4

E. Invasion of Privacy 

To establish a claim for invasion of privacy under California law, a plaintiff must establish: 

(1) a legally protected privacy interest, (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy under the 

circumstances, and (3) an egregious invasion of the privacy interest. Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate 

Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal. 4th 1, 35-37, 39-40 (Cal. 1994). Modden fails adequately to plead any of 

 

4

 To establish a claim for unlawful restraint of trade under New York law, a plaintiff must (1) 

identify the relevant product market, (2) describe the nature and effects of the purported 

conspiracy, (3) allege how the economic impact of that conspiracy is to restrain trade, and (4) 

demonstrate that a conspiracy or reciprocal relationship existed between two or more entities. 

Nat’l Gear & Piston, Inc. v. Cummins Power Sys., LLC, 861 F. Supp. 2d 344, 370 (S.D.N.Y. 

2012). Modden fails to satisfy this standard as well. 

Case 3:18-cv-06450-RS Document 71 Filed 07/29/19 Page 6 of 9
CASE NO. 18-cv-06450-RS

7 

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 Californi

a

these elements. The SAC alleges Ticketfly invaded his privacy by “getting involved in ordinary 

social drama and private matters of private parties.” SAC 10. Modden further contends Ticketfly 

violated its own privacy policy by allegedly sharing his identifying information with its parent 

company, Pandora. Id. The factual basis for Modden’s belief that Ticketfly shared his information 

with Pandora appears to be that his music is no longer on Pandora’s website. This inference is 

tenuous at best. Even accepting this allegation as true, however, Modden fails to state a claim. 

First, he has not provided sufficient information about the type of private information 

shared with Pandora or the circumstances under which this information was allegedly shared. 

Without this context, it is difficult to tell whether Modden had any legally protected privacy 

interest or whether he has plausibly alleged a reasonable expectation of privacy. Furthermore, as 

currently pled, the SAC does not plausibly establish an “egregious” invasion of Modden’s privacy. 

Hill, 7 Cal. 4th at 37 (“No community could function if every intrusion into the realm of private 

action, no matter how slight or trivial, gave rise to a cause of action for invasion of privacy.”). 

Accordingly, Modden’s claim for invasion of privacy is dismissed with leave to amend.5

F. Breach of Contract 

To state a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must allege, the “(1) existence of the 

contract; (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant’s breach; and (4) 

damages to plaintiff as a result of the breach.” CDF Firefighters v. Maldonado, 158 Cal. App. 4th 

1226, 1239 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). Modden advances three primary theories of breach of contract. 

First, he alleges Ticketfly breached the contract by barring him from the Toothless concert and 

refunding his ticket even though he did not violate any of the terms of the contact. Second, he 

contends Ticketfly’s termination of his customer account was unjustified under the applicable 

contract. Finally, the SAC alleges Ticketfly breached the ticketing contract by sharing his data 

 

5

 New York does not recognize a common law tort for invasion of privacy. Messenger v. Gruner + 

Jahr Print. & Pub., 94 N.Y.2d 436, 441 (N.Y. 2000). The state does, however, provide a statutory 

cause of action for the unauthorized use of a person’s name, portrait or picture. N.Y. Civ. Rights 

Law § 51 (McKinney 2018). This act clearly does not apply to the facts of Modden’s complaint. 

Accordingly, even if New York law applied to this case, Modden would be unable to state a claim. 

Case 3:18-cv-06450-RS Document 71 Filed 07/29/19 Page 7 of 9
CASE NO. 18-cv-06450-RS

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

with Pandora in violation of Ticketfly’s privacy policy. 

Ticketfly argues these averments are inadequate for several reasons. First, the company 

argues Modden’s failure to allege all the relevant terms of the contract undermines his claim. In 

particular, Ticketfly argues, he should have alleged whether a written agreement exists and 

whether there was a separate agreement with respect to the maintenance of his customer account. 

The company further argues Modden’s failure to plead performance is fatal to his breach of 

contract claim. Finally, Ticketfly argues Modden fails adequately to plead damages because he 

received a full refund for the ticket and does not explain why he is entitled to special or 

consequential damages.6 Under the liberal pleading standard applicable to pro se plaintiffs, 

Modden’s failure to specify whether he had a separate written contract for the ticketing of the 

concert and for the maintenance of his customer account is not fatal. Furthermore, as performance 

may be pled generally, Durell v. Sharp Healthcare, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1350, 1367 (Cal. Ct. App. 

2010), Modden’s statement that he did not violate any of the terms of the agreement is sufficient. 

Ticketfly is correct, however, that special and consequential damages must be “pled with 

particularity.” Greenwich S.F., LLC v. Wong, 190 Cal. App. 4th 739, 754, 760 (Cal. Ct. App. 

2010) (citation and quotation omitted) (“Special damages will not be presumed from the mere 

breach but represent loss that occurred by reason of injuries following from the breach. Special 

damages are among the losses that are foreseeable and proximately caused by the breach of a 

contract.”). A plaintiff must generally show the “circumstances from which [these damages] arise 

were actually communicated to or known by the breaching party [] or were matters of which the 

breaching party should have been aware at the time of contracting.” Lewis Jorge Constr. Mgmt., 

Inc. v. Pomona Unified Sch. Dist., 34 Cal. 4th 960, 968-69 (Cal. 2004). 

Throughout the SAC, Modden alleges his musical career has been hampered by his 

 

6

 Ticketfly also argues that the terms of the ticketing contract limited the company’s liability with 

respect to consequential, exemplary, special, or other indirect damages. Mot. Dismiss 5 (citing 

Brecklin Decl. Ex. B). Ticketfly does not, however, request judicial notice or incorporation by 

reference of this document. In any event, Modden appears to dispute that the contract contained 

any such provisions. Accordingly, Ticketfly’s cited document will not be considered here. 

Case 3:18-cv-06450-RS Document 71 Filed 07/29/19 Page 8 of 9
CASE NO. 18-cv-06450-RS

9 

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 Californi

a

inability to use Ticketfly or Eventbrite since the cancellation of his customer account. Modden has 

not, however, adequately pled facts tending to show Ticketfly knew, or should have known, he 

was likely to suffer special damages related to his career as a result of the company’s actions. 

Accordingly, the claim for breach of contract is dismissed with leave to amend. 

V. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, the motion to dismiss is granted. Modden is granted leave 

to amend with respect to the invasion of privacy and the breach of contract claims. All other 

claims are dismissed without leave to amend. Should Modden choose to file an amended 

complaint, he must do so no later than August 29, 2019. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 29, 2019 

______________________________________ 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-06450-RS Document 71 Filed 07/29/19 Page 9 of 9