Proposed Order — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 28.2)

Summary

Document 28-2, stamped Filed 04/05/21 in Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation, Case No. 4:21-cv-01418-EMC (N.D. Cal., San Francisco Division), is a two-page [PROPOSED] Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6), and Motion to Strike Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16. It carries the Perkins Coie LLP attorneys for Defendant Thomson Reuters Corporation and lists a hearing on June 3, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. before Hon. Edward M. Chen. The proposed order would find that Plaintiffs failed to establish the essential elements of their claims, that Defendant's speech is protected by the First Amendment, and that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act applies. It would grant both motions, leave blank the deadline for a fee motion, and is unsigned and undated.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC        Document 28-2    Filed 04/05/21   Page 1 of 2



 1   Susan D. Fahringer, Bar No. 21567                     Gabriella Gallego, Bar No. 324226
     SFahringer@perkinscoie.com                            GGallego@perkinscoie.com
 2   Nicola C. Menaldo, pro hac vice                       PERKINS COIE LLP
     NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com
 3   Anna M. Thompson, pro hac vice                        3150 Porter Drive
     AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com                          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
 4   PERKINS COIE LLP                                      Telephone: 650.838.4300
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900                         Facsimile: 650.838.4350
 5   Seattle, WA 98101-3099
     Telephone: 206.359.8000
 6   Facsimile: 206.359.9000

 7   Attorneys for Defendant
     Thomson Reuters Corporation
 8

 9
                               UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
                            NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
                                       SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
12

13
     CAT BROOKS and RASHEED                      Case No. 4:21-cv-01418-EMC
14   SHABAZZ, individually and on behalf of
     all others similarly situated,              [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
15                                               DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
                         Plaintiffs,             PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6), AND
16                                               MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO
           v.                                    CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL
17                                               PROCEDURE § 425.16
     THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,
18                                               Date:        June 3, 2021
                         Defendant.              Time:        1:30 p.m.
19
                                                 Place:       Courtroom 5, 17th Floor
20                                               Judge:       Hon. Edward M. Chen

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
     [PROPOSED] ORDER                                                 Case No. 4:21-cv-01418-EMC
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC           Document 28-2          Filed 04/05/21   Page 2 of 2



 1          Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure

 2   12(b)(6) and Motion to Strike Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16.

 3          Having considered the papers and arguments, the Court finds that for the reasons set forth

 4   in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs have failed to establish the essential elements of their

 5   claims; Defendant’s speech is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and

 6   Plaintiffs’ private interests do not outweigh the public interest in the dissemination of the

 7   information at issue; and Plaintiffs seek to impose liability on Defendant for conduct that is

 8   protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 28 U.S.C. § 230. Accordingly, the

 9   Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

10          Further, for the reasons set forth in Defendant’s Motion to Strike, the Court hereby

11   GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Strike Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16.

12   Defendants shall submit any motion for attorneys’ fees and costs no later than ___________. See

13   Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. § 425.16(c)(1) (“[A] prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall

14   be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs.”).

15

16

17           IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

19    DATED: __________, 2021
                                                                  The Honorable Edward M. Chen
20                                                                  United States District Judge
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
     [PROPOSED] ORDER                                  -1-                     Case No. 4:21-cv-01418-EMC


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.28.2.pdf

Size

117,351 bytes

SHA-256

636efaa8b6023bc1ecfc8b8f1179711a360e9c5004f38ffbfe1dbc340db18f9f

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.28.2.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)