N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M AR Y KAY B EC KM AN, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. M ATC H.C OM , LLC , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-16324 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-00097-JC M NJK M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Jam e s C . M aha

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 20, 2015 Subm ission Va c ate d Nove m be r 3, 2015 R e subm itte d for De c ision August 30, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : PAEZ, M U R GUIA, a nd HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s. M ary Ka y B e c km a n a p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing with pre j udic e he r c om

pla int a g a inst M atc h.c om (“ M atc h” ). W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we a ffirm

and re ve rse in pa

rt. 

# FIL ED SEP 01 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.W e re vie w de novo thedism issa l of a c om pla i nt pursua

nt to R u le 12(b)(6), and we re vie w for an a

b use of disc re tion thede nia l of a pa rty ’ s re que s t for le ave to am e nd. C

e rv ante s v . C ountryw ideHomeLoans, Inc . , 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th C ir. 2011); K

a hle v . Gonzale

s , 487 F.3d 697, 699 (9th C ir. 2007). 1. The distric t c ourt prope rly c onc lude d tha

t the C om m unic ations De c e nc y

Ac t (“ C DA” ), 47 U.S.C . § 230, ba rre d B e c km an’ s c la im s for ne g lige nt m isre pre se ntation, viola

tion of theFe de ra l Tra de C om m i ssion Ac t (unfa i r tra de pra c tic e s), a

nd puta tive ne glige nc e pe r se . The C D A provide s tha t no “ inte ra c tive c om pute r se rvic e [provide r] sha ll be tre ate d a s the publishe r or spe ake r of any inform at ion provide d by ” a third-pa rty . Id. § 230(c )(1); se e also Barne s v . Yahoo!, Inc . , 570 F.3d 1096, 1105–06 (9th C ir. 2009); Fair Hous. C ounc il of San Fernando Valle y v . Roomate

s.c om, LLC , 521 F.3d 1157, 1163–64 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba nc ). Furthe r, “ no [c ivil] lia

bility m ay

be im pose d unde r any

State or loc a l la

w tha t is inc o nsiste nt” with C DA se c tion (c )(1). 47 U.S.C . § 230(e )(3). The ba sis for e a c h of those c la im s is M atc h’ s role a s a publishe r of third-pa

rty inform ation. Thus, the distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion whe n it de t e rm i ne d tha t a m e ndm e n t of those c la i m s would befutile . S aul v . Unite d State

s , 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th C ir. 1991). 2. The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly he ld tha t B e c km an fa ile d

to sta te a c l a im for 2ne glige nt inflic tion of e m otiona l distre ss a n d tha t a m e ndm e nt would befutile . Unde r Ne va da

la w, only a “ b y sta nde r” m ay

bring a c la im for ne glige nt inflic tion of e m otiona l distre ss. Sc hoe n v . Ame rc o, Inc . , 896 P.2d 469, 477 (Nev. 1995); Oliv e ro v . Low e , 995 P.2d 1023, 1026–27 (Ne v. 2000). “ Dire c t vic tim s” of ne glige nc e torts m ay

re c ove r for e m otiona l distre ss a s pa rt of the ir da

m a ge s award. Sc hoe n , 896 P.2d a

t 477. Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm the dism issa l without le ave to am e nd. 3. The distric t c ourt did not ha ve the be ne fit of our re c e nt opinion in DoeN o. 14 v . Inte rne t Brands, Inc . , 824 F.3d 846 (9th C ir. 2016), whe n it dismisse d B e c km a n’ s Ne va da

la w fa i lure to wa

rn c la im . In DoeN

u mbe r 14 , we he ld tha

t at the p le a ding sta ge , the C DA did not pre c lude a pla intiff from

a lle ging a sta

te la w fa ilure to wa

rn c la im a g a inst a we bsite owne r who ha d obta ine d inform ation “ from an outsidesourc e a

bout how third pa

rtie s ta rge t e d a nd lure d vic tim s” through tha t we bsite pla

tform . Id. at 851. Im

porta ntly , Doe ’ s c l a im

did not se e k to im

pose lia bility for the we bsite owne r’ s role a s a “ publishe r or spe ake r” of third-pa rty c onte nt, for its fa ilure to re m ove tha t c onte nt, or for its fa ilure to m onitor thirdpa rty c onte nt on its we

b site . Id. Ne va da la wprovide s tha

t, whe n a de fe nda nt ha s a c tua l knowle dge of a spe c ific ha

rm , tha t de fe nda nt ha s a duty

to wa rn known, fore se e a

b le vic tim s of 3known, fore se e a ble ha rm s. Duc e

y v . Unite d State

s , 830 F.2d 1071, 1072 (9th C ir. 1987); Elk

o Ente r s., Inc . v . Broy le

s , 779 P.2d 961, 964 (Nev. 1989) (pe r c uriam )); Mange ris v . Gordon , 580 P.2d 481, 483 (Nev. 1978) . At ora l a rgum e nt, B e c km a n’ s c ounse l re pre se nte d tha t if gra nte d le a v e to a m e nd, B e c k

m an c ould a lle ge tha t M atc h ha d a c t

ua l knowle dge tha

t R idle y ha d ide ntifie d a

nd atta c ke d othe r wom e n using M atc h’ s se rvic e prior to his a tta c k on B e c km a

n . In light of c ounse l’ s re pre se ntat ions a nd D oeN umbe r 14 , B e c km a

n should ha

ve the opportunity

to c ure the de fic ie nc ie s in he r fa ilure to wa rn c la im , if possible . W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of B e c km an’ s ne g lige nt m isre pre se ntation, unfa ir tra de pra c tic e s, ne glige nc e pe r se , a nd ne glige nt inflic tion of e m otiona l distre ss c la i m s. W e re ve rse its dism i ssa l of B e c km an ’ s fa ilure to warn c la i m . On re m and, the distric t c ourt is dire c te d to provideB e c km an a re a s ona ble opportunity

to a m e n d he r c om

pla int. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts on a

ppe a l. AFFIRM E D in par t, RE V E RSE D in par t, and RE M ANDE D.

4