Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Omar Mmubango v. Google

February 22, 2013

OMAR MMUBANGO
v.
GOOGLE, INC., ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: McLaughlin, J.

MEMORANDUM

This case arises out of derogatory statements made about the plaintiff and posted anonymously on a third-party website that is linked to the website of the defendant Google, Inc. The plaintiff claims that defendant Google is liable for various tortious actions, including defamation. Google has moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(6), claiming immunity under the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230. The Court grants the defendant's motion.

I. Factual & Procedural Background*fn1

On or around September 2006, the plaintiff, Omar Mmubango, discovered that an unknown individual was posting anonymous statements about the plaintiff on a website, http://www.wikiscams.com. The statements, which were derogatory in nature, were accessible upon triggering certain search terms in a website published by defendant Google, Inc. The plaintiff repeatedly requested that Google take the statements off of its search engine and that Google give the plaintiff information about the then-unknown poster, but Google refused both requests. Compl. ¶ 2; Third Am. Compl. ¶ 2-4 (Docket No. 47).

On October 6, 2011, the plaintiff filed a complaint in Pennsylvania state court against Google and an "Unknown Party."*fn2

He seeks over $700,000 in damages. Google removed the action to federal court on March 13, 2012, and it filed the instant motion to dismiss on March 20, 2012.

Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff filed numerous briefings opposing the removal, alleging that he was a citizen of Delaware, not Pennsylvania, and that diversity jurisdiction did not exist. As a result, the Court ordered the parties to conduct limited discovery as to the jurisdictional issue, specifically the plaintiff's state of citizenship. Docket No. 16. After reviewing the defendant's supplemental memorandum, the Court held that the plaintiff was a citizen of Pennsylvania and retained subject-matter jurisdiction on the case. Docket No. 41.

The plaintiff has now filed a Third Amended Complaint, which includes the names of, and claims against, the previously "unknown parties" who had authored and posted the derogatory statements. His claims against Google remain the same: he alleges defamation as to Google's decision to publish the statement and negligence as to Google's decision not to remove it upon his request.*fn3 The Court now considers the defendant Google's pending motion to dismiss with respect to this complaint.*fn4

II. Analysis

The defendant has moved for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). It asserts that the plaintiff's claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), and, as such, he has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Under the Communications Decency Act, interactive computer service providers are immunized against liability for third-party-created content. Section 230 of the CDA states in relevant part:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. . . . [Further,] no cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.

47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1),(e)(3). As the Third Circuit has explained, this section "precludes courts from entertaining claims that would place a computer service provider in a publisher's role, and therefore bars lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher's traditional editorial functions." Green v. Am. Online, 318 F.3d 465, 471 (3d. Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted).

In the instant case, the Court finds that the plaintiff's claims against Google are barred ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.