United States District Court Northern District of California Case 5:17-cv-06064-LHK Document 54 Filed 03/26/18 Page 9 of 27 1 bars all of Plaintiff’s causes of action, id. at 13–15; and (3) Plaintiff’s complaint fails to 2 sufficiently plead any causes of action. Id. at 15–24. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint 3 should be dismissed for failure to state any federal claims, and therefore declines to address 4 Defendants’ other arguments for dismissal. The Court first addresses Plaintiff’s federal causes of 5 action, and then addresses together Plaintiff’s state law claims. 6 1. Federal Causes of Action 7 As discussed above, Plaintiff’s complaint asserts only two substantive federal causes of 8 action: violation of the First Amendment, and violation of the Lanham Act. Further, Plaintiff’s 9 claim for declaratory relief is premised in part on Defendants’ alleged violations of the First 10 Amendment and the Lanham Act. The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff has failed to 11 state a claim under either the First Amendment or the Lanham Act, and accordingly, Plaintiff has 12 failed to state a claim for declaratory relief premised on the First Amendment and the Lanham 13 Act. The Court addresses each claim in turn. 14 a. First Amendment 15 Plaintiff argues that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights by applying 16 their “censorship criteria . . . as a pretext to” demonetize and restrict access to some of Plaintiff’s 17 videos “based not on the content of the [videos] but because of [Plaintiff’s] identity and political 18 viewpoints.” Compl. ¶ 89. In their motion to dismiss, Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s First 19 Amendment claim fails because Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege that Defendants are state 20 actors. Mot. at 15–16. For the reasons discussed below, the Court agrees with Defendants. 21 “It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of free speech is a 22 guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state.” Hudgens v. N.L.R.B., 424 23 U.S. 507, 513 (1976). Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendants are private entities. See Compl. 24 ¶¶ 18–19; ECF No. 25 at 14 (conceding that “Defendants are not public entities”). However, in 25 some circumstances, a private entity can be a state actor for constitutional purposes. Specifically, 26 “‘[t]he Supreme Court has articulated four tests for determining whether a private party’s actions 27 28 9 Case No. 17-CV-06064-LHK ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL CAUSES OF ACTION; DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CAUSES OF ACTION; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION