ALEJANDRO PEREZ V. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, No. 21-15234 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 18 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEJANDRO EVARISTO PEREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-15234 D.C. No. 5:20-cv-07238-EJD MEMORANDUM* LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 8, 2021** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Alejandro Evaristo Perez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging First Amendment and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. * 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). Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Perez’s action because Perez failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Prager U. v. Google LLC, 951 F.3d 991, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2020) (internet media websites are not government actors under the First Amendment); Hughes v. Pair, 209 P.3d 963, 976 (Cal. 2009) (elements of claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress); Kibler v. N. Inyo County Loc. Hosp. Dist., 138 P.3d 193, 198 (Cal. 2006) (California’s Anti-SLAPP statute does not provide a separate cause of action). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 21-15234

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.