Court Opinion

ID: 9391892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-03 16:00:43.876413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:30.249648
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             FILED
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                           MAY 3 2023
                                                                           MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                            U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

J.B.,                                               No.    22-15290

                  Plaintiff-Appellant,              D.C. No. 4:19-cv-07848-HSG

  v.
                                                    MEMORANDUM*
CRAIGSLIST, INC.,

                  Defendant-Appellee.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of California
                   Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

                               Submitted April 20, 2023**
                                San Francisco, California

Before: VANDYKE and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and S. MURPHY,*** District
Judge.

        On a certified interlocutory appeal, Plaintiff J.B. challenges the district court’s

legal determination that section 230(e)(5)(A) of the Communications Decency Act

 *
   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as
provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
 **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
 ***
     The Honorable Stephen Joseph Murphy, III, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
(CDA), as amended by the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking

Act (FOSTA), “‘provides an exemption from immunity for a section 1595 claim’”

under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPRA) “‘if, but only if, the

defendant’s conduct amounts to a violation of section 1591.’” We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), and we affirm.         We assume familiarity with the

underlying facts and arguments in this appeal.

      “We review de novo both a district court order dismissing a plaintiff’s claims

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and questions of statutory

interpretation.” Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Grp., Inc., 934 F.3d 1093, 1096 (9th

Cir. 2019). Only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief may survive a

motion to dismiss. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

      The sole issue certified to this court for interlocutory appeal has now been

decided and foreclosed by Jane Does 1–6 v. Reddit, Inc., 51 F.4th 1137 (9th Cir.

2022), petition for cert. filed, --- U.S.L.W. --- (U.S. Jan. 25, 2023) (No. 22-695).

The question certified to this court is whether “section 230(e)(5)(A) of the CDA, as

amended by FOSTA[], ‘provides an exemption from immunity for a section 1595

claim if, but only if, the defendant’s conduct amounts to a violation of section

1591.’”1 Reddit answered that question in the affirmative: “[F]or a plaintiff to

1
  The court declines to address issues raised by Appellee that were neither certified
for appeal, see, e.g., Reese v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 643 F.3d 681, 688–90

                                         2
invoke FOSTA’s immunity exception, she must plausibly allege that the website’s

own conduct violated section 1591.” 51 F.4th at 1141.

      Because the district court “dismisse[d] Plaintiff’s TVPRA claim with leave to

amend,” any further proceedings below should be conducted in a manner consistent

with this court’s Reddit decision. Accordingly, because the question certified for

interlocutory appeal is controlled by Reddit, the decision of the district court is

AFFIRMED.2

(9th Cir. 2011), nor decided within the certified order, see Yamaha Motor Corp.,
U.S.A. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199, 205 (1996).
2
  We recognize that a petition for certiorari in Reddit is pending, and that the
Supreme Court also has before it two related cases, the disposition of which could
affect our court’s Reddit precedent. See Gonzalez v. Google LLC, No. 21-1333
(argued Feb. 21, 2023), and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, No. 21-1496 (argued Feb. 22,
2023). But to the extent developments in any of those cases might affect our court’s
holding in Reddit, the district court is well-equipped to address such arguments in
the first instance.

                                         3