J.B. v. Craigslist, Inc. ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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