Rangel v. Twitter Foundation et al
| Adrian Rangel |
| Twitter Foundation, Vijaya Gadde, Jack Dorsey and Twitter Inc. |
| 3:2021cv08062 |
| October 15, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Charles R Breyer |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 19, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 72
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND BRIEFING by Judge Charles R. Breyer: Granting #71 Stipulation. 1. Last day on which Defendants can file their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs SAC: February 1, 2022. 2. Last day on which Plaintiff can file his opposition to Defendants motion to dismiss Plaintiffs SAC: March 1, 2022. 3. Last day on which Defendants can file their reply brief in support of this motion to dismiss Plaintiffs SAC: March 22, 2022. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
|
| Filing 71 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Set Briefing Schedule filed by Jack Dorsey, Twitter Inc. and Adrian Rangel. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Kelsey R. Spector in support of Joint Stipulation to Set Briefing Schedule Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2)(Spector, Kelsey) (Filed on 10/28/2021) Modified on 10/29/2021 (bns, COURT STAFF). |
| Filing 70 CLERK'S NOTICE Acknowledging Receipt of Case Transfer in from the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:19cv07020. (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) |
| Filing 69 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Case Management Statement due by 1/7/2022. Initial Case Management Conference set for 1/14/2022 08:30 AM in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor. (Attachments: #1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) |
| Filing 68 Case transferred in from District of Illinois Northern; Case Number 1:19-cv-07020. Original file certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. |
| Filing 67 TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of California the electronic record. (ph, ) |
| Filing 66 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration #63 and Defendant's motion #65 for an extension of time. Plaintiff, who is acting pro se, states that he is suffering from cataracts that impair his ability to litigate the case. Plaintiff provides this information in support of a request that the Court reconsider its decision to transfer this case to the Northern District of California. Plaintiff does not, however, provide any legal authority (he cites an inapposite decision from the Ninth Circuit) explaining why Plaintiff's medical condition justifies keeping in this District a case that belongs in the Northern District of California. To the extent Plaintiff requires accommodation of his medical condition in connection with his prosecution of this action, this Court is confident that the transferee Court will address Plaintiff's concerns. On this point, it is worth noting that all recent activity in this case has occurred through electronic filings, not in-person hearings; thus it is not clear why Plaintiff's medical condition should, as a factual matter, require that the case remain in this District. Presumably the Clerk of the Northern District of California will ensure that Plaintiff can submit paper filings by mail for entry on the docket. For these reasons, the motion for reconsideration #63 is denied, and the Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this case forthwith to the Northern District of California. Defendants' motion #65 for an extension of time, good cause being shown for the reasons stated in the motion, is granted. Subject to amendment by the transferee Court, Defendants' response to the Second Amended Complaint is due on or before the later of 21 days after entry on the docket of this minute order or 21 days after this case is docketed in the Northern District of California. Mailed notice (ef, ) |
| Filing 65 MOTION by Defendants Jack Dorsey, Twitter Inc. for extension of time (Spector, Kelsey) |
| Filing 64 AFFIDAVIT by Plaintiff Adrian Rangel in Support of MOTION by Plaintiff Adrian Rangel for reconsideration of DE 62 #63 (Exhibits). (aee, ) |
| Filing 63 MOTION by Plaintiff Adrian Rangel for reconsideration of DE 62. (aee, ) |
| Filing 62 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Defendant's motion to dismiss for improper failure to state a claim or, in the alternative, to transfer venue #44 , is granted in part and denied in part. The motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice to later refiling, and the case is transferred to the Northern District of California. (Nothing in this order, of course, should otherwise reflect any views on the proper disposition of the case.) Defendant contends that the Northern District of California is the correct forum because Twitter's terms of service include a facially valid and enforceable forum selection clause requiring litigation in San Francisco County, California. (Dkt. 44 at 8.) Plaintiff does not contest that he freely agreed to Twitter's Terms of Service, which include the forum-selection clause. California law explains that neither cost nor personal hardship are justifiable reasons to ignore an otherwise valid forum-selection clause. See Intershop Commc'ns, AG v. Super. Ct., 104 Cal. App. 4th 191, 198 (2002). And as the Supreme Court of the United States has explained, the party opposing enforcement of a valid forum selection clause must show "extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the convenience of the parties" to justify refusing to enforce the clause. See Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49, 52 (2013). With this rule in mind, the Court holds that Plaintiff has failed to make the extraordinary showing necessary to defeat the presumptively valid forum-selection clause present here. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to transfer. Case transferred to the Northern District of California. Any other pending motions are dismissed without prejudice to refiling once the case is docketed in the transferee court. Mailed notice (ef, ) |
| Filing 61 NOTICE by Kyle C. Wong of Change of Address (Wong, Kyle) |
|
Filing 60
ORDER Fifth Amended General Order 20-0012 IN RE: CORONAVIRUS COVID-19 PUBLIC EMERGENCY Signed by the Chief Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on July 10, 2020. This Order does not extend or modify any deadlines set in civil cases. No motions may be noticed for in-person presentment; the presiding judge will notify parties of the need, if any, for a hearing by electronic means or in-court proceeding. See attached Order. Signed by the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 7/10/2020: Mailed notice. (Clerk6, Docket)
|
|
Filing 59
ORDER ORDER Fourth Amended General Order 20-0012 IN RE: CORONAVIRUS COVID-19 PUBLIC EMERGENCY Signed by the Chief Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on May 26, 2020. This Order does not extend or modify any deadlines set in civil cases. For non-emergency motions, no motion may be noticed for presentment on a date earlier than July 15, 2020. See attached Order. Signed by the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 5/26/2020: Mailed notice. (docket8, )
|
| Filing 58 STATUS Report (Joint) in Reassigned Case by Jack Dorsey, Twitter Inc. (Spector, Kelsey) |
|
Filing 57
ORDER : STANDING ORDER REGARDING CIVIL CASES. Signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 4/30/2020: Mailed notice. (docket4, )
|
|
Filing 56
ORDER Third Amended General Order 20-0012 IN RE: CORONAVIRUS COVID-19 PUBLIC EMERGENCY Signed by the Chief Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on April 24, 2020. All open cases are impacted by this Third Amended General Order. Parties are must carefully review all obligations under this Order, including the requirement listed in paragraph number 5 to file a joint written status report in most civil cases. See attached Order. Signed by the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 4/24/2020: Mailed notice. (docket6, )
|
|
Filing 55
ORDER Seconded Amended General Order 20-0012 IN RE: CORONAVIRUS COVID-19 PUBLIC EMERGENCY Signed by the Chief Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on March 30, 2020. All open cases are impacted by this Second Amended General Order. Amended General Order 20-0012, entered on March 17, 2020, and General Order 20-0014, entered on March 20, 2020, are vacated and superseded by this Second Amended General. See attached Order for guidance.Signed by the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 3/30/2020: Mailed notice. (docket12, )
|
|
Filing 54
ORDER Amended General Order 20-0012 IN RE: CORONAVIRUS COVID-19 PUBLIC EMERGENCY Signed by the Chief Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on March 16, 2020. All open cases are impacted by this Amended General Order. See attached Order for guidance.Signed by the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 3/16/2020: Mailed notice. (ecw, )
|
| Filing 53 REPLY by Jack Dorsey, Twitter Inc. to MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendants Twitter Inc., Jack Dorsey Defendant Twitter, Inc. and Defendant Jack Dorsey's Motion to Dismiss and, in the Alternative, to Transfer VenueMOTION by Defendants Twitter Inc., Jack Dorsey to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction MOTION by Defendants Twitter Inc., Jack Dorsey to transfer case #44 (Spector, Kelsey) |
|
Filing 52
ORDER : STANDING ORDER REGARDING REASSIGNED CIVIL CASES: This Standing Order applies to all civil cases reassigned as of February 28, 2020 to the calendar of District Judge John F. Kness. Unless otherwise ordered: (1) all previously-set status or motion hearing dates are vacated; (2) any trials or evidentiary hearings scheduled between March 9, 2020 and May 1, 2020 are continued and will be re-set by the Court at a future hearing; and (3) all other previously-set deadlines and schedules (other than hearing dates) shall remain in effect. See Order for details. Signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 3/9/2020: Mailed notice. (tg, )
|
| Filing 51 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: GENERAL ORDER 20-0008 - Pursuant that to the Executive Committee Order entered on February 24, 2020 the civil cases on the attached list have been selected for reassignment to form the initial calendar of the Honorable John F. Kness; therefore IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the attached list of 313 cases be reassigned to the Honorable John F. Kness; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all parties affected by this Order must review the Honorable John F. Kness' webpage on the Court's website for the purpose of reviewing instructions regarding scheduling and case management procedures; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any civil case that has been reassigned pursuant to this Order will not be randomly reassigned to create the initial calendar of a new district judge for twelve months from the date of this Order; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to add the Honorable John F. Kness to the Court's civil case assignment system during the next business day, so that he shall receive a full share of such cases. Case reassigned to the Honorable John F. Kness for all further proceedings. Honorable Manish S. Shah no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 2/28/2020.(tg, ) |
| Filing 50 REVISED RESPONSE by Plaintiff Adrian Rangel to defendant Twitter, Inc. and defendant Jack Dorsey's motion to dismiss and, in the alternative, to transfer venue. (Attachments: #1 Declaration)(ec, ) |
| Filing 49 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The briefing schedule on defendants' motion to dismiss #44 is as follows: plaintiff's response is due 2/25/20; defendants' reply 3/10/20. The court will enter an order via cm/ecf in which any further dates will be set, if necessary. Discovery is stayed pending issuance of a ruling on the motion. No appearance is necessary on 2/6/20. Notices mailed. (psm, ) |
| Filing 48 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Adrian Rangel to defendant Twitter, Inc and defendant Jack Dorsey's motion to dismiss and, in the alternative, to transfer venue (Exhibits). (aee, ) |
| Filing 47 STATUS Report Plaintiff Adrian Rangel and Defendants Twitter, Inc. and Jack Dorsey's Joint Initial Status Report by Jack Dorsey, Twitter Inc. (Spector, Kelsey) |
| Filing 46 Notice of Motion to Dismiss and, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue and Request for Judicial Notice NOTICE of Motion by Kelsey R. Spector for presentment of Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim,,,,,, motion to dismiss/lack of jurisdiction,,,,,, motion to transfer case,,,,, #44 before Honorable Manish S. Shah on 2/6/2020 at 09:30 AM. (Spector, Kelsey) |
| Filing 45 Defendants Twitter Foundation and Jack Dorsey's Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss and, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue by Jack Dorsey, Twitter Inc. (Spector, Kelsey) |
| Filing 44 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendants Twitter Inc., Jack Dorsey Defendant Twitter, Inc. and Defendant Jack Dorsey's Motion to Dismiss and, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue, MOTION by Defendants Twitter Inc., Jack Dorsey to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction , MOTION by Defendants Twitter Inc., Jack Dorsey to transfer case (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Kelsey R. Spector in Support of Defendant Twitter, Inc. and Defendant Jack Dorsey's Motion to Dismiss and, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue, #2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Kelsey R. Spector in Support of Defendant Twitter, Inc. and Defendant Jack Dorsey's Motion to Dismiss and, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue, #3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Kelsey R. Spector in Support of Defendant Twitter, Inc. and Defendant Jack Dorsey's Motion to Dismiss and, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue, #4 Exhibit C to Declaration of Kelsey R. Spector in Support of Defendant Twitter, Inc. and Defendant Jack Dorsey's Motion to Dismiss and, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue, #5 Exhibit D to Declaration of Kelsey R. Spector in Support of Defendant Twitter, Inc. and Defendant Jack Dorsey's Motion to Dismiss and, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue)(Spector, Kelsey) |
| Filing 43 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Adrian Rangel tp defendants Twitter, Inc. and Jack Dorsey's opposition to plaintiff's request for permission to file an Amended Complaint (29) (Exhibits). (aee, ) |
|
Filing 42
ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Manish S. Shah on 1/28/2020: Plaintiff's motions #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 #40 #41 are denied. The docketing issues and timing of entry of orders described by plaintiff are not unusual and caused no prejudice to plaintiff. The lawsuit will proceed with defendants' response to the operative complaint, due on 1/29/20. [For further detail see attached order.] Notices mailed. (psm, )
|
| Filing 41 MOTION by Plaintiff Adrian Rangel for leave to file interlocutory appeal of DE32. (aee, ) |
| Filing 40 MOTION by Plaintiff Adrian Rangel for stay pending notice of interlocutory appeal of DE32. (aee, ) |
| Filing 39 MOTION by Plaintiff Adrian Rangel to stay. (aee, ) |
| Filing 38 MOTION by Plaintiff Adrian Rangel for mistrial. (aee, ) |
| Filing 37 MOTION by Plaintiff Adrian Rangel for recusal (Exhibits). (aee, ) |
| Filing 36 MOTION by Plaintiff Adrian Rangel for Stay of Proceedings (tg, ) |
| Filing 34 MOTION by Plaintiff Adrian Rangel for leave to file Amended Complaint. (aee, ) |
| Filing 35 MOTION by Plaintiff Adrian Rangel for reconsideration of order DE 32 (tg, ) |
| Filing 33 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Adrian Rangel to Defendants Twitter, Inc. and Jack Dorsey's opposition to Plaintiff's Request for Permission to file an Amended Complaint (29) (Exhibits). (aee, ) |
| Filing 32 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Plaintiff's motion for permission to file amended complaint #30 is denied. There may have been a miscommunication between plaintiff and the Clerk's Office, but the rules provide for only one amendment as a matter of course and plaintiff's recent amendments, Docket Nos. 28 and 29, exceed the number of amendments permitted. Plaintiff may still amend with leave of court, but under the circumstances, amendment would only delay the progress of the case. Defendants are on track to respond to the operative complaint, Docket No. 17. After defendants respond by 1/29/20, the court will set or adjust the schedule. Notices mailed. (psm, ) |
| Filing 31 RESPONSE by Jack Dorsey, Twitter Inc. in Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff Adrian Rangel to amend/correct #30 (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Kelsey R. Spector, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B)(Spector, Kelsey) |
| Filing 30 MOTION by Plaintiff Adrian Rangel for permission to file Amended Complaint (DE29). (aee, ) |
| Filing 29 AMENDED complaint for breach of contract by Adrian Rangel against Adrian Rangel. (aee, ) |
| Filing 28 AMENDED complaint for Breach of Contract Adding Negligent Hiring, Training and Supervision by Adrian Rangel against Jack Dorsey, Twitter Inc. (Exhibits). (aee, ) |
| Filing 27 NOTICE of Compliance by Adrian Rangel with Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot. (aee, ) |
| Filing 26 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The motion for extension of time #24 is granted, and defendant Twitter, Inc. must respond to the complaint by 1/29/20. The motions for leave to appear pro hac vice #19 #20 are granted. No appearance on 12/11/19 is necessary. Notices mailed. (psm, ) |
| Filing 25 NOTICE of Motion by Jeffrey Thomas Norberg for presentment of extension of time #24 before Honorable Manish S. Shah on 12/11/2019 at 09:45 AM. (Norberg, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 24 MOTION by Defendant Twitter Inc. for extension of time (unopposed) (Norberg, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 23 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Twitter Inc.. Twitter Inc. waiver sent on 11/30/2019, answer due 1/29/2020. (Norberg, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 22 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Jack Dorsey. Jack Dorsey waiver sent on 11/30/2019, answer due 1/29/2020. (Norberg, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 21 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Jack Dorsey by Jeffrey Thomas Norberg (Norberg, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 20 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-16502757. (Spector, Kelsey) |
| Filing 19 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-16502701. (Wong, Kyle) |
| Filing 18 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (aee, ) |
| Filing 17 RULE FRCP 15(a)(2) AMENDED complaint for breach of contract by Adrian Rangel against Jack Dorsey, Twitter Foundation and terminating Vijaya Gadde. (aee, ) Modified on 12/3/2019 (aee, ). |
| Filing 16 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The motion for extension of time #12 is granted. Defendant Twitter, Inc. must respond to the amended complaint by 12/19/19. If defendant's response is a motion to dismiss, no notice of presentment is necessary. Plaintiff's response will be due 1/9/20; defendant's reply 1/23/20. If defendant's response is an answer, parties shall comply with MIDP. No appearance on 12/5/19 is necessary. A status hearing is set for 2/6/20 at 9:30 a.m. The motions for leave to appear pro hac vice #14 #15 are granted. Notices mailed. (psm, ) |
| Filing 15 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-16488172. (Spector, Kelsey) |
| Filing 14 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-16488118. (Wong, Kyle) |
| Filing 13 NOTICE of Motion by Jeffrey Thomas Norberg for presentment of extension of time #12 before Honorable Manish S. Shah on 12/5/2019 at 09:45 AM. (Norberg, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 12 MOTION by Defendant Twitter Foundation for extension of time to respond to complaint (Norberg, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 11 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Twitter Foundation by Jeffrey Thomas Norberg (Norberg, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 10 SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Jack Dorsey. (aee, ) |
| Filing 9 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Adrian Rangel as to Twitter Foundation on 10/31/2019, answer due 11/21/2019. (aee, ) |
| Filing 8 AMENDED CIVIL Cover Sheet. (aee, ) |
| Filing 7 AMENDED complaint for breach of contract by Adrian Rangel against All Defendants. (aee, ) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP). The key features and deadlines are set forth in this Notice which includes a link to the (MIDP) Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the parties. In cases subject to the pilot, all parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the Standing Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the Standing Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the following documents (Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and the Standing Order) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (aee, ) |
| Filing 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The court, on its own motion, dismisses plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. See Shockley v. Jones, 823 F.2d 1068, 1072 (7th Cir. 1987) ("[T]his circuit permits sua sponte dismissals based on Rule 12(b)(6)."). The complaint alleges that defendants violated plaintiff's constitutional rights when they suspended his Twitter account. Although the topics discussed on Twitter are often matters of public concern, the defendants are not alleged to be government actors. The constitutional rights cited in plaintiff's complaintfirst, fourth, and fourteenth amendment rights-prohibit certain government action. Nothing in the complaint suggests government action; the claims are entirely directed at the actions of private parties. Plaintiff alleges diversity of citizenship, which would confer federal-court jurisdiction over a claim based on a violation of state law (like breach of contract), but no such claim is alleged. A lawsuit seeking money damages based on a violation of the constitution is permitted by 42 U.S.C. 1983, but such a claim requires an allegation that the defendant was acting under color of state law. See L.P. v. Marian Catholic High Sch., 852 F.3d 690, 696 (7th Cir. 2017). The complaint is dismissed without prejudice to filing an amended complaint that states a cause of action. Any amended complaint must be filed by November 15, 2019. If no amended complaint is filed, this dismissal will convert to a dismissal with prejudice and the clerk will enter judgment terminating the case. Notices mailed. (psm, ) |
| SUMMONS Issued as to Defendants Vijaya Gadde, Twitter Foundation (pj, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Adrian Rangel. (aee, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (aee, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Adrian Rangel; Jury Demand. (aee, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
