UZOMA IGBONWA V. FACEBOOK, INC., No. 19-15121 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 26 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UZOMA IGBONWA, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-15121 D.C. No. 3:18-cv-02027-JCS v. MEMORANDUM* FACEBOOK, INC.; MARK ZUCKERBERG, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Joseph C. Spero, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted November 18, 2019*** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Uzoma Igbonwa appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging negligence, defamation, discrimination, and breach of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). contract. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc., 824 F.3d 846, 849 (9th Cir. 2016). We may affirm on any basis supported in the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). The district court properly dismissed Igbonwa’s negligence, defamation, and discrimination claims as barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because interactive computer service providers are immune under the Act from civil liability from claims premised upon the provider’s role as “the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2009). Dismissal of Igbonwa’s breach of contract claim was proper because Igbonwa failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants violated any provision in the Terms of Service. See Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors, XXVI, LLC, 126 Cal. Rptr. 3d 174, 183 (Ct. App. 2011) (setting forth required elements to state a claim for breach of contract). 2 19-15121 We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 3 19-15121

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.