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