444 F. App'x 986
9th Cir.2011Background
- Riggs appeals pro se from district court dismissal with prejudice of a diversity action asserting state-law claims of negligence, gross negligence, promissory fraud breach of contract, and breach of implied-in-fact contract against MySpace.
- The district court dismissed negligence and gross negligence claims as precluded by CDA §230(c)(1).
- The district court dismissed the promissory fraud breach of contract claim for lack of cognizable damages.
- The district court did not dismiss the implied-in-fact contract claim; it was improper to dismiss that claim because Riggs alleged a conditioned disclosure of ideas for compensation.
- Riggs’s appeal asks the Ninth Circuit to affirm, reverse, or remand regarding these dismissals; the panel affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CDA §230 precludes negligence claims | Riggs argues MySpace’s profile deletions caused harm. | MySpace’s decisions are immune as publisher under §230. | Yes; claims precluded by §230. |
| Whether promissory fraud breach of contract claims lack cognizable damages | Damages include emotional/other losses under contract. | Emotional distress damages not recoverable in ordinary contract; fees not recoverable absent agreement. | Yes; properly dismissed for lack of cognizable damages. |
| Whether implied-in-fact contract claim should have been dismissed | Idea disclosure was conditioned on payment; there was an implied contract upon disclosure. | No viable implied-in-fact contract established. | No; district court erred in dismissing implied-in-fact claim; remand for merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (en banc, 9th Cir. 2008) (§230 immunity for third-party content decisions)
- Erlich v. Menezes, 981 P.2d 978 (Cal. 1999) (no damages for mental suffering in ordinary contract actions)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 201 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (attorney’s fees not recoverable absent contract or statute)
- Nagy v. Nagy, 258 Cal. Rptr. 787 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (emotional-distress damages not recoverable in fraud)
- Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., 383 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2004) (implied-in-fact contract for disclosure of an idea requires conditioned offer and acceptance)
- Desny v. Wilder, 299 P.2d 257 (Cal. 1956) (implied-in-fact contract for ideas with conditional payment)
- Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2008) (considerations not raised on appeal may be waived)
- Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard of review de novo)