KIMBERLY COPELAND V. TWITTER, INC., ET AL, No. 18-17327 (9th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 2 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS KIMBERLY COPELAND, individually and No. 18-17327 on behalf of the Estate of Sean Copeland and the Estate of Brodie Copeland, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-05851-WHO Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. TWITTER, INC.; FACEBOOK, INC.; GOOGLE, LLC, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Horsley Orrick, District Judge, Presiding DANELLE SINCLAIR, as Guardian Ad Litem for A. Tucker and O. Tucker; ISABELLA TUCKER, No. 19-15625 D.C. No. 4:17-cv-05710-SBA Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TWITTER, INC.; GOOGLE, LLC; FACEBOOK, INC., Defendants-Appellees. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding MANDY PALMUCCI, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 19-15937 D.C. No. 3:18-cv-03947-WHO v. TWITTER, INC.; GOOGLE, LLC; FACEBOOK, INC., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Horsley Orrick, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 29, 2024** San Francisco, California Before: PAEZ, WALLACH,*** and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Kimberly Copeland, Danielle Sinclair, Isabella Tucker, and Mandy Palmucci (collectively “Plaintiffs-Appellants”) appeal the district courts’ dismissals of their actions against Twitter, Inc., Google LLC, ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Evan J. Wallach, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. 2 18-17327 and Facebook, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants-Appellees”1). Plaintiffs-Appellants seek remands to amend their respective operative complaints in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 598 U.S. 617 (2023) (per curiam), and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471 (2023). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. The court concludes de novo that amending the operative complaints would be futile. See Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiffs-Appellants fail to allege the third element for aiding and abetting liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2333(d), that Defendants-Appellees “gave such knowing and substantial assistance to ISIS that they culpably participated” in the terrorist acts, Taamneh, 598 U.S. at 497 (applying the legal framework set forth in Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472 (D.C. Cir. 1983)). Each district court properly considered2 this dispositive third element. See id. at 503–07. Plaintiffs-Appellants 1 The names used by the parties in their filings are retained here, although the court acknowledges that Twitter, Inc. has merged into X Corp. and Facebook, Inc. is known as Meta Platforms, Inc. Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471, 479 n.3 (2023). 2 See Copeland v. Twitter, Inc., 352 F. Supp. 3d 965, 975–76 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (applying Halberstam’s framework); Sinclair ex rel. Tucker v. Twitter, Inc., No. C 17-5710 SBA, 2019 WL 10252752, at *5–6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2019) (same); Palmucci v. Twitter Inc., No. 18-cv-03947-WHO, 2019 WL 1676079, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2019) (“[Appellant Palmucci] was given an opportunity to explain why – in light of the caselaw identified above – her case should continue. She declined, essentially admitting that no additional facts could be alleged that might state her claims under the ATA or state law.” (noting reliance on analysis from Copeland and Fields v. Twitter, Inc., 881 F.3d 739 (9th Cir. 2018))). 3 18-17327 proffer no arguments that any of the district courts either erred in dismissing claims or abused its discretion in denying leave to amend. AFFIRMED. 4 18-17327

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.