Kimberly Copeland, individually v. Twitter, Inc.; Facebook, Inc.; Google, LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KIMBERLY COPELAND, individually and
on behalf of the Estate of Sean Copeland and
the Estate of Brodie Copeland,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TWITTER, INC.; FACEBOOK, INC.;
GOOGLE, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-17327
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-05851-WHO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Horsley Orrick, District Judge, Presiding
DANELLE SINCLAIR, as Guardian Ad
Litem for A. Tucker and O. Tucker;
ISABELLA TUCKER,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
TWITTER, INC.; GOOGLE, LLC;
FACEBOOK, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 19-15625
D.C. No. 4:17-cv-05710-SBA
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
APR 2 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 18-17327
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding
MANDY PALMUCCI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TWITTER, INC.; GOOGLE, LLC;
FACEBOOK, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 19-15937
D.C. No. 3:18-cv-03947-WHO
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Horsley Orrick, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 29, 2024**
San Francisco, California
Before: PAEZ, WALLACH,*** and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Kimberly Copeland, Danielle Sinclair,
Isabella Tucker, and Mandy Palmucci (collectively “Plaintiffs-Appellants”) appeal
the district courts’ dismissals of their actions against Twitter, Inc., Google LLC,
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Evan J. Wallach, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 2 of 4 --

3 18-17327
and Facebook, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants-Appellees”1). Plaintiffs-Appellants
seek remands to amend their respective operative complaints in light of the
Supreme Court’s decisions in Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 598 U.S. 617 (2023) (per
curiam), and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471 (2023). See Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The court concludes de novo that amending the operative complaints would
be futile. See Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir.
2008). Plaintiffs-Appellants fail to allege the third element for aiding and abetting
liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2333(d), that Defendants-Appellees “gave such
knowing and substantial assistance to ISIS that they culpably participated” in the
terrorist acts, Taamneh, 598 U.S. at 497 (applying the legal framework set forth in
Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472 (D.C. Cir. 1983)). Each district court properly
considered2 this dispositive third element. See id. at 503–07. Plaintiffs-Appellants
1 The names used by the parties in their filings are retained here, although the
court acknowledges that Twitter, Inc. has merged into X Corp. and Facebook, Inc.
is known as Meta Platforms, Inc. Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471, 479 n.3
(2023).
2 See Copeland v. Twitter, Inc., 352 F. Supp. 3d 965, 975–76 (N.D. Cal. 2018)
(applying Halberstam’s framework); Sinclair ex rel. Tucker v. Twitter, Inc., No. C
17-5710 SBA, 2019 WL 10252752, at *5–6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2019) (same);
Palmucci v. Twitter Inc., No. 18-cv-03947-WHO, 2019 WL 1676079, at *4 (N.D.
Cal. Apr. 17, 2019) (“[Appellant Palmucci] was given an opportunity to explain
why – in light of the caselaw identified above – her case should continue. She
declined, essentially admitting that no additional facts could be alleged that might
state her claims under the ATA or state law.” (noting reliance on analysis from
Copeland and Fields v. Twitter, Inc., 881 F.3d 739 (9th Cir. 2018))).

-- 3 of 4 --

4 18-17327
proffer no arguments that any of the district courts either erred in dismissing claims
or abused its discretion in denying leave to amend.
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --