J.B. v. Craigslist, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 3 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT J.B., No. 22-15290 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C.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