Court Opinion

ID: 9963979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 17:00:50.028631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:07.265723
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 23-3135
                                       __________

                                    FRIEDRICH LU,
                                       Appellant

                                             v.

                    COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
                      ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
                         (D.C. Civil Action No. 2-22-cv-03633)
                      District Judge: Honorable R. Barclay Surrick
                      ____________________________________

                 Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
                                 April 19, 2024
      Before: BIBAS, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges

                              (Opinion filed: April 26, 2024)
                                      ___________

                                        OPINION *

                                       ___________

PER CURIAM

       Pro se Appellant Friedrich Lu, a resident of Massachusetts, filed an amended

complaint against Defendant Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, (“Comcast”)

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
alleging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2520 and Massachusetts state law pertaining to the

interception of wire communications. He alleges that an unknown person “hacked or

snooped on” his Google account, and that after he informed Comcast about the issue, it

aided and abetted the hacker. Comcast filed a motion to dismiss for insufficient service

of process and failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6). Lu opposed the motion to dismiss, and filed a joint response and

motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. After concluding that Lu

failed to properly serve Comcast and failed to state a claim, the District Court granted

Comcast’s motion and dismissed Lu’s complaint. Lu was granted leave to file a second

amended complaint within 30 days of the date of the District Court’s order dismissing his

complaint. He did not do so, and this resulted in his claims being dismissed with

prejudice. Lu timely filed a notice of appeal.

       We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over a

district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d

220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). A plaintiff must present in his or her complaint “factual content

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged” and this “plausibility standard . . . asks for more than a sheer

possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556–57 (2007)). We may

affirm on any basis supported by the record. See Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d

236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999).

                                              2
       We agree with the District Court’s conclusion that Lu failed to state a claim, as he

does not plausibly allege that Comcast violated either the federal statute governing the

intentional interception of wire communications or its Massachusetts counterpart. His

amended complaint includes a single paragraph describing the substance of his claims:

       Plaintiff Friedrich Lu has a Gmail account, including Drive for documents. Google
       has notified Lu that his account has been hacked or snooped on, the recent one
       being a break-in on Aug 10, 2022. On information and belief, the hacker is a
       federal employee conducting warantless searches and seizures. Armed with the
       internet protocol address (IP address), Lu complained to Comcast Cable,
       according to instructions of its Web page. Comcast Cable instead aided and
       abetted the hacker, pledging to conceal the identity among other things.

       Lu offers nothing more than threadbare assertions and conclusory statements about

Comcast’s alleged aiding and abetting of a hacker, coupled with citations to the federal

and Massachusetts statutes, and this is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under

Rule 12(b)(6). See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Thus, the District Court correctly dismissed

Lu’s complaint for this reason with prejudice when he decided not to further amend it.

On appeal, Lu fails to present any arguments that would cause us to doubt the District

Court’s conclusion. 1

       Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Comcast’s motion

to file a supplemental appendix is granted. Lu’s motion to appoint a special master and

motion to strike are denied.

1
  In light of our disposition, we need not consider the District Court’s dismissal for
insufficient service of process. Regarding Lu’s aspersions of “naked judicial corruption”
directed at the District Judge, we find them unsupported and devoid of merit, and we will
address them no further.
                                             3