Motion,Ex Parte: CHRISTINA ARLINGTON SMITH INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO LALANI WALTON, DECEASED, ET AL. VS TIKTOK INC., ET AL.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                1   COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
     Ashley M. Simonsen, SBN 275203
 2   asimonsen@cov.com
     1999 Avenue of the Stars
 3   Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Tel.: 424-332-4800
 4
     Attorneys for Defendants Meta Platforms, Inc.
 5   f/k/a Facebook, Inc.; Facebook Holdings, LLC;
     Facebook Operations, LLC; Facebook Payments,
 6
     Inc.; Facebook Technologies, LLC;
 7   Instagram, LLC; and Siculus, Inc.

 8   [Additional Counsel on Signature Page]

 9

10

11

12

13                          SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

14                                  FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

15
      COORDINATION PROCEEDING SPECIAL                          JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION
16    TITLE [RULE 3.400]                                       PROCEEDING NO. 5255
17    SOCIAL MEDIA CASES                                       For Filing Purposes: 22STCV21355
18
                                                               Judge: Hon. Carolyn B. Kuhl
19                                                             SSC-12
      THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
20                                                             DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF DEMURRER
      (Christina Arlington Smith, et al. v. TikTok             AND DEMURRER TO CERTAIN
21    Inc., et al., Case No. 22STCV21355)                      SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLAINTS
22    (The School Board of Brevard County, Fla. v. Meta        Date: May 13, 2024
      Platforms, Inc., et al., Case No. 24STCV01468)           Time: 10:30 a.m.
23
                                                               Dept.: SSC-12
24    (San Diego Unified School District v. Meta
      Platforms, Inc., et al., Case No. 23STCV14900)
25
      (Vancouver School District No. 37 v. Meta
26    Platforms, Inc., et al., Case No. 23STCV14780)
27    (West Warwick Public Schools v. Meta Platforms,
28    Inc., et al., Case No. 23STCV26875)

                                                        1
                 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLAINTS
 1   TO PLAINTIFFS AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
 2          PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on May 13, 2024 at 10:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter
 3   may be heard, in Department 12 of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, located at 312 North
 4   Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, Defendants Meta Platforms, Inc., Instagram, LLC, Facebook
 5   Payments, Inc., Siculus, Inc., Facebook Operations, LLC, Facebook Technologies, LLC, and Facebook
 6   Holdings, LLC (collectively, “Meta” or the “Meta Defendants”); Defendant Snap Inc. (“Snap”);
 7   Defendants ByteDance Ltd., ByteDance Inc., TikTok Ltd., TikTok LLC, and TikTok Inc. (collectively,
 8   “TikTok” or the “TikTok Defendants”); and Defendants Google, LLC, YouTube, LLC, and Alphabet,
 9   Inc. (collectively, “Google” or the “Google Defendants”) (and together with all Defendants,
10   “Defendants”) will and hereby do demur to the below School District Complaints identified for the initial
11   round of demurrer briefing:
12          1.      Complaint For Damages And Demand For Jury Trial, The School Board of Brevard
13                  County, Fla. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., Case No. 24STCV01468 (L.A. Super. Ct. filed
14                  Jan. 19, 2024) (“FL Compl.”);
15          2.      Amended Complaint For Damages And Demand For Jury Trial, San Diego Unified School
16                  District v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., Case No. 23STCV14900 (L.A. Super. Ct. filed Jan.
17                  19, 2024) (“CA Compl.”);
18          3.      Amended Complaint For Damages And Demand For Jury Trial, Vancouver School District
19                  No. 37 v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., Case No. 23STCV14780 (L.A. Super. Ct. filed Jan.
20                  19, 2024) (“WA Compl.”); and
21          4.      Amended Complaint For Damages And Demand For Jury Trial, West Warwick Public
22                  Schools v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., Case No. 23STCV26875 (L.A. Super. Ct. filed Jan.
23                  19, 2024) (“RI Compl.”)
24          The demurrer is made on the grounds that the Complaints do not state facts sufficient to constitute
25   a cause of action against Defendants. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 430.10(e).
26          Defendants base this motion on this notice, the demurrer and memorandum of points and
27   authorities, and all other pleadings and papers on file in this action, and on such other arguments or
28   evidence that may be submitted to the Court prior to the hearing.

                                                         2
                 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLAINTS
 1
     DATED: February 1, 2024                 COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
 2

 3

 4                                           By:          /s/ Ashley M. Simonsen
                                                   Ashley M. Simonsen
 5
                                                   ASHLEY M. SIMONSEN, SBN 275203
 6
                                                   asimonsen@cov.com
 7                                                 COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
                                                   1999 Avenue of the Stars
 8                                                 Los Angeles, CA 90067
                                                   Tel.: 424-332-4800
 9
                                                   Attorneys for Defendants Meta Platforms, Inc.
10
                                                   f/k/a Facebook, Inc.; Facebook Holdings, LLC;
11                                                 Facebook Operations, LLC; Facebook Payments,
                                                   Inc.; Facebook Technologies, LLC;
12                                                 Instagram, LLC; and Siculus, Inc.
13                                                 [Additional Counsel on Signature Page]
14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

                                                       3
                DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLAINTS
 1                                                TABLE OF CONTENTS
 2   MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ............................................................15
 3   I.     INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................15
 4   II.    BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................16
 5   III.   LEGAL STANDARD ...................................................................................................17
 6   IV.    ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................17
 7                    The School Districts’ Alleged Injuries Are Too Remote To Sustain Cognizable
                      Public Nuisance or Negligence Claims. ..............................................................17
 8

 9                    1.        Claims That Are Derivative of Third Party Harms Are Not Cognizable. .17

10                    2.        The School Districts May Not Recover Indirect Damages Based Upon
                                Their Students’ Alleged Injuries. ............................................................19
11
                      The School Districts’ Nuisance Claims Fail for Multiple Reasons. .....................22
12
                      1.        The School Districts’ Sweeping Theory of Public Nuisance Represents
13                              an Unwarranted Expansion of a Traditionally Limited Common-Law
14                              Tort. .......................................................................................................22

15                    2.        The School Districts’ Public Nuisance Claims Fail Because They Have
                                Not Alleged Interference with a Public Right..........................................28
16
                      3.        The School Districts’ Nuisance Claims Fail Because They Have Not
17                              Adequately Alleged “Special Injury.” .....................................................33
18                    The School Districts’ Negligence and Gross Negligence Claims Fail. ................36
19                    1.        The School Districts Fail to Allege a Cognizable Legal Duty. .................36
20
                      2.        The Economic Loss Doctrine Separately Bars the Negligence Claims.....45
21
                      The School Districts’ Claims, Damages, or Both That Accrued Outside the
22                    Statutory Time Period Are Time Barred in Whole or in Part...............................46

23
     V.     CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................49
24

25

26

27

28

                                                                           4
                  DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLAINTS
 1                                                     TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
 2                                                                                                                              Page(s)
 3   Cases
 4

 5   Abad v. G4S Secure Sols. (USA), Inc.,
        293 So. 3d 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) ..................................................................................... 43
 6
     Aguila v. Hilton, Inc.,
 7      878 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) .................................................................................... 40
 8   Al -Ahmed v. Twitter, Inc.,
         603 F. Supp. 3d 857 (N.D. Cal. 2022)............................................................................ 47, 49
 9

10   Allegheny Gen. Hosp. v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
         228 F.3d 429 (3d Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................ 36
11
     Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Olympic Game Farm, Inc.,
12      533 P.3d 1170 (Wash. 2023) ................................................................................... 24, 26, 30
13   Apex, Inc. v. Rhode Island Elec. Protective Co.,
        1984 WL 560571 (R.I. Aug. 15, 1984) ................................................................................ 36
14

15   Arias v. Dyncorp,
        738 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2010), aff’d, 752 F.3d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ........................... 18
16
     Arriaga v. New England Gas Co.,
17      483 F. Supp. 2d 177 (D.R.I. 2007) ....................................................................................... 35
18   Ass’n of Wash. Pub. Hosp. Districts v. Philip Morris Inc.,
        241 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2001) ............................................................................. 17, 18, 20, 21
19
     Estate of B.H. v. Netflix, Inc.,
20
        2022 WL 551701 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2022) ......................................................................... 44
21
     Baker v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasedena Airport Auth.,
22      39 Cal. 3d 862 (1985) .......................................................................................................... 47

23   Bank of Am. Corp. v. City of Miami, Fla.,
        581 U.S. 189 (2017) ............................................................................................................ 18
24
     Bill v. Super. Ct.,
25       137 Cal. App. 3d 1002 (1982) ....................................................................................... 38, 45
26
     Boudreau v. Automatic Temperature Controls, Inc.,
27      212 A.3d 594 (R.I. 2019)............................................................................................... 47, 49

28

                                                                            5
                     DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLAINTS
 1   State ex rel. Bowen v. Bank of Am. Corp.,
         126 Cal. App. 4th 225 (2005) ........................................................................................ 17, 37
 2
     Boynton v. Burglass,
 3
        590 So. 2d 446 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991), as amended on denial of reh’g (Dec. 24,
 4      1991) ............................................................................................................................. 38, 39

 5   Brown v. USA Taekwondo,
        11 Cal. 5th 204 (2021) ................................................................................................... 38, 39
 6
     c.f. Pac. Sound Res. v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Corp.,
 7        125 P.3d 981 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005) ................................................................................... 49
 8   Castaic Lake Water Agency v. Whittaker Corp.,
 9      272 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (C.D. Cal. 2003) .......................................................................... 28, 49

10   Champa v. Wash. Compressed Gas Co.,
        146 Wash. 190, 262 P. 228 (1927) ....................................................................................... 24
11
     Cincinnati v. Beretta USA Corp.,
12      768 N.E.2d 1136 (Ohio 2002).............................................................................................. 26
13   City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
14       957 F. Supp. 1130 (N.D. Cal. 1997) .................................................................................... 18

15   City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Purdue Pharma L.P.,
         491 F. Supp. 3d 610 (N.D. Cal. 2020).................................................................................. 27
16
     City of Chicago, v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.,
17       821 N.E.2d 1099 (Ill. 2004) .......................................................................................... passim
18   City of Everett v. Purdue Pharma L.P.,
         2017 WL 4236062 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 25, 2017) ..................................................... 24, 42, 48
19

20   City of Huntington v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp.,
         609 F. Supp. 3d 408 (S.D.W. Va. 2022) ........................................................................ 23, 27
21
     City of Modesto Redevelopment Agency v. Superior Ct.,
22       119 Cal. App. 4th 28 (2004) ................................................................................................ 25
23   City of Pawtucket v. Sundlun,
         662 A.2d 40 (R.I. 1995)....................................................................................................... 31
24
     City of Perry v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
25
         188 F. Supp. 3d 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) .................................................................................. 23
26
     City of Philadelphia v. Beretta U.S.A., Corp.,
27       126 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Pa. 2000).................................................................................... 27

28

                                                                               6
                      DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLAINTS
 1   City of Philadelphia v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.,
         277 F.3d 415 (3d Cir. 2002) .................................................................................... 18, 19, 20
 2
     City of San Diego v. U.S. Gypsum Co.,
 3
         30 Cal. App. 4th 575 (1994) ................................................................................................ 25
 4
     Cnty. of Cook v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
 5      353 Ill. App. 3d 55 (2004) ................................................................................................... 18

 6   Crisman v. Crisman,
        931 P.2d 163 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997) ................................................................................... 48
 7
     Crosby v. Twitter, Inc.,
 8
        921 F.3d 617 (6th Cir. 2019) ......................................................................................... 41, 42
 9
     Cunningham v. Anchor Hocking Corp.,
10      558 So. 2d 93 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990) .............................................................................. 34

11   Dandeneau v. Bd. of Governors for Higher Educ.,
        491 A.2d 1011 (R.I. 1985) ................................................................................................... 49
12
     Davies v. Krasna,
13      14 Cal. 3d 502 (1975) .................................................................................................... 47, 49
14
     Delfino v. Agilent Techs., Inc.,
15      145 Cal. App. 4th 790 (2006) .............................................................................................. 45

16   Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Bogorff,
        35 So. 3d 84 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010) ................................................................................ 23
17
     Detroit Bd. of Educ. v. Celotex Corp.,
18      196 Mich. App. 694 (1992) ................................................................................................. 23
19   Detroit Bd. of Educ. v. Celotex Corp.,
20      493 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992)............................................................................... 27

21   Doe II v. MySpace Inc.,
        175 Cal. App. 4th 561 (2009) .............................................................................................. 17
22
     Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Grp., Inc.,
23      934 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................. 39
24   E. Me. Med. Ctr., et al v. Teva Pharma. USA, Inc., et al.,
        Case No. BCD-CIV-2022-00025 (Me. Super. Ct. Feb. 13, 2023) ......................................... 36
25

26   Erlich v. Menezes,
         21 Cal. 4th 543 (1999) ......................................................................................................... 40
27
     In re Estates of Hibbard,
28       826 P.2d 690 (Wash. 1992) ................................................................................................. 47

                                                                            7
                      DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLAINTS
 1   Fayetteville Ark. Hosp. Co., LLC, et al. v. Amneal Pharma., LLC, et al.,
        Case No. 72CV-20-156 (Ark. Cir. Ct. Dec. 16, 2022) .......................................................... 36
 2
     Ferreira v. Strack,
 3
        636 A.2d 682 (R.I. 1994)..................................................................................................... 40
 4
     In re Firearm Cases,
 5       126 Cal. App. 4th 959 (2005) ........................................................................................ 25, 26

 6   Flynn v. Nickerson Cmty. Ctr.,
        177 A.3d 468 (R.I. 2018)............................................................................................... 38, 39
 7
     Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.,
 8
        35 Cal. 4th 797 (2005) ................................................................................................... 48, 49
 9
     Fradkin v. Northshore Util. Dist.,
10      96 Wash. App. 118, 977 P.2d 1265 (1999) .......................................................................... 47

11   Franklin Grove Corp. v. Drexel,
        936 A.2d 1272 (R.I. 2007) ................................................................................................... 45
12
     Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp.,
13      258 Conn. 313 (2001).............................................................................................. 18, 20, 26
14
     Florida ex rel. Gardner v. Sailboat Key, Inc.,
15      295 So. 2d 658 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974) ............................................................................ 34

16   Giraldo v. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab.,
        168 Cal. App. 4th 231 (2008) .............................................................................................. 39
17
     Giraud v. Quincy Farm & Chem.,
18      6 P.3d 104 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) ................................................................................. 47, 48
19   Giuffre v. Edwards,
20      226 So. 3d 1034 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017) .......................................................................... 18

21   Gray v. Derderian,
        371 F. Supp. 2d 98 (D.R.I. 2005) ......................................................................................... 37
22
     Grieco, v. Daiho Sangyo, Inc.,
23      344 So. 3d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) ............................................................................... 41, 42
24   Gushlaw v. Milner,
        42 A.3d 1245 (R.I. 2012)......................................................................................... 39, 40, 41
25

26   Hegyes v. Unjian Enters., Inc.,
        234 Cal. App. 3d 1103 (1991) ............................................................................................. 37
27
     Holmes v. Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp.,
28      503 U.S. 258 (1992) ................................................................................................ 18, 20, 21

                                                                           8
                     DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLAINTS
 1   Hulet v. Wishkah Boom Co.,
        103 P. 814 (Wash. 1909) ..................................................................................................... 28
 2
     State ex rel. Hunter v. Johnson & Johnson,
 3
         499 P.3d 719 (Okla. 2021)............................................................................................ passim
 4
     Hydro-Mfg., Inc. v. Kayser-Roth Corp.,
 5      640 A.2d 950 (R.I. 1994)..................................................................................................... 34

 6   Ileto v. Glock Inc.,
         349 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................. 26
 7
     Independence Cty. v. Pfizer, Inc.,
 8
        534 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Ark. 2008) ................................................................................. 23
 9
     Int’l Bhd. Of Teamsters, Loc. 734 Health & Welfare Tr. Fund v. Philip Morris Inc.,
10       196 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 1999) ............................................................................................... 21

11   James v. Meow Media, Inc.,
        300 F.3d 683 (6th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................................... 38
12
     In re Jan. 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litig.,
13       584 F. Supp. 3d at 1189 ....................................................................................................... 45
14
     Jane Doe No. 1 v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
15      79 Cal. App. 5th 410 (2022) ................................................................................................ 40

16   Jefferson v. Qwik Korner Mkt., Inc.,
         28 Cal. App. 4th 990 (1994) ................................................................................................ 42
17
     John Rocchio Corp. v. Pare Eng’g Corp.,
18      201 A.3d 316 (R.I. 2019)..................................................................................................... 43
19   In re JUUL Labs, Inc., Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prod. Liab. Litig.,
20       497 F. Supp. 3d 552 (N.D. Cal. 2020)...................................................................... 20, 26, 30

21   Kenney Mfg. Co. v. Starkweather & Shepley, Inc.,
        643 A.2d 203 (R.I. 1994)..................................................................................................... 37
22
     Kesner v. Super. Ct.,
23      1 Cal. 5th 1132 (2016) ......................................................................................................... 36
24   Klayman v. Zuckerberg,
        753 F.3d 1354 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................... 39
25

26   Knight v. Merhige,
        133 So. 3d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) ................................................................................. 43
27
     Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc.,
28      14 Cal. 5th 993 (2023) ............................................................................................. 40, 41, 43

                                                                            9
                     DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLAINTS
 1   Laborers Loc. 17 Health & Benefit Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
        191 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 1999), as amended (Aug. 18, 1999)............................................. 17, 18
 2
     In re Lead Paint Litig.,
 3
         191 N.J. 405 (2007) ....................................................................................................... 22, 26
 4
     Long Beach Mem’l Med. Ctr. v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc.,
 5      71 Cal. App. 5th 323 (2021) ................................................................................................ 37

 6   M.L. v. Craigslist Inc.,
        2020 WL 6434845 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 17, 2020) .................................................................. 39
 7
     MacDonald v. State,
 8
       230 Cal. App. 3d 319 (1991) ............................................................................................... 39
 9
     Mangini v. Aerojet-Gen. Corp.,
10     230 Cal. App. 3d 1125 (1991) ....................................................................................... 47, 49

11   Martin v. Bridgeport Comty. Assn., Inc.,
       173 Cal. App. 4th 1024 (2009) ............................................................................................ 18
12
     McCollum v. CBS, Inc.,
13     202 Cal. App. 3d 989 (1988) ............................................................................................... 44
14
     McKenna v. Williams,
15     874 A.2d 217 (R.I. 2005)..................................................................................................... 18

16   In re McKinsey & Co. Nat’l Prescription Opiate Consultant Litig.,
         2023 WL 4670291 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2023)................................................................. 34, 35
17
     Melton v. Boustred,
18      183 Cal. App. 4th 521 (2010) ........................................................................................ 17, 40
19   Modisette v. Apple Inc.,
20     30 Cal. App. 5th 136 (2018) .............................................................................. 37, 38, 41, 45

21   Olivia N. v. Nat’l Broad., Co.,
         126 Cal. App. 3d 488 (1981) ......................................................................................... 44, 45
22
     Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. State ex rel. Powell,
23      262 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1972) ...................................................................................... 28, 29, 30
24   Packingham v. North Carolina,
        582 U.S. 98 (2017) .............................................................................................................. 44
25

26   Page v. Niagara Chem. Div. on Food. Mach. & Chem. Corp.,
        68 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1953) .................................................................................................... 36
27

28

                                                                           10
                      DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLAINTS
 1   Penelas v. Arms Tech., Inc.,
        1999 WL 1204353 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Dec. 13, 1999), aff’d, 778 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
 2      App. 2001) ................................................................................................................... passim
 3
     Penelas v. Arms Tech., Inc.,
 4      778 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)............................................................................. 25, 28

 5   People v. ConAgra Grocery Products Co.,
        17 Cal. App. 5th 51 (2017) .................................................................................................. 30
 6
     Perkins v. U.S. Healthworks, Inc.,
 7      No. D072489, 2018 WL 4474271 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2018)......................................... 49
 8   Philadelphia Elec. Co. v. Hercules, Inc.,
 9      762 F.2d 303 (3d Cir. 1985) ................................................................................................ 34

10   Polanco v. Lombardi,
        231 A.3d 139 (R.I. 2020)............................................................................................... 47, 49
11
     Pompano Horse Club et al. v. State,
12      93 Fla. 415 (1927) ............................................................................................................... 23
13   Regents of Univ. of Calif. v. Super. Ct.,
14      4 Cal. 5th 607 (2018)........................................................................................................... 39

15   Riblet v. Ideal Cement Co.,
        345 P.2d 173 (Wash. 1959) ................................................................................................. 47
16
     Richmond Realty, Inc. v. Town of Richmond,
17      644 A.2d 831 (R.I. 1994)..................................................................................................... 34
18   Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians etc. v. Flynt,
        70 Cal. App. 5th 1059 (2021) ........................................................................................ 28, 35
19

20   Rowland v. Christian,
        69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968) .................................................................................................... 41, 43
21
     Russo v. Town of Greenwich,
22      1998 WL 552383 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 20, 1998) ............................................................ 33
23   Saenz v. WhiteWater Voyages, Inc.,
        226 Cal. App. 3d 758 (1990) ............................................................................................... 36
24
     Sanders v. Acclaim Ent., Inc.,
25
        188 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (D. Colo. 2002) ................................................................................. 38
26
     Saunders v. Baseball Factory, Inc.,
27      361 So. 3d 365 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) ................................................................................... 39

28

                                                                            11
                      DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLAINTS
 1   Sewell v. Racetrac Petroleum, Inc.,
        245 So. 3d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) .................................................................................... 40
 2
     Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
 3
        12 Cal. 5th 905 (2022) ......................................................................................................... 45
 4
     In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
 5       903 F. Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................................. 45

 6   Sound Mind & Body, Inc., v. City of Seattle,
        122 Wash. App. 1074, 2004 WL 1814330 (2004) ................................................................ 35
 7
     People ex rel. Spitzer v. Sturm, Ruger & Co.,
 8
        309 A.D.2d 91 (2003).......................................................................................................... 25
 9
     State of Sao Paulo of Federative Republic of Brazil v. Am. Tobacco Co.,
10       919 A.2d 1116 (Del. 2007) .................................................................................................. 21

11   State v. Lead Indus., Ass’n, Inc.,
         951 A.2d 428 (R.I. 2008).............................................................................................. passim
12
     Sturgill v. Lucas,
13       292 So. 3d 462 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020) ............................................................................ 41
14
     Texas v. Am. Tobacco Co.,
15      14 F. Supp. 2d 956 (E.D. Tex. 1997) ................................................................................... 24

16   Tiara Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.,
        110 So. 3d 399 (Fla. 2013) .................................................................................................. 45
17
     Tiegs v. Watts,
18      135 Wash.2d 1, 954 P.2d 877 (1998) ................................................................................... 24
19   Tioga Public School District v. United States Gypsum Co.,
20      984 F.2d 915 (8th Cir. 1993) ........................................................................................ passim

21   Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh,
        598 U.S. 471 (2023) .......................................................................................... 39, 42, 43, 44
22
     United Food & Com. Workers Unions, Emps. Health & Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris,
23      Inc.,
        223 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2000)............................................................................................ 18
24
     State ex rel. Vandervort v. Grant,
25
         286 P. 63 (Wash. 1930) ....................................................................................................... 34
26
     Wallace v. Lewis County,
27      137 P.3d 101 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006) ............................................................................. 47, 49

28

                                                                           12
                     DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLAINTS
 1   Wash. State Hous. Fin. Comm’n v. Nat’l Homebuyers Fund, Inc.,
       193 Wash. 2d 704 (2019) .................................................................................................... 18
 2
     Welsh v. Metro. Dade Cty.,
 3
        366 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) .................................................................................... 37
 4
     Young v. Facebook, Inc.,
 5      2010 WL 4269304 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2010) ...................................................................... 39

 6   Zamora v. Columbia Broad. Sys.,
        480 F. Supp. 199 (S.D. Fla. 1979) ....................................................................................... 38
 7
     Zukowsky v. Brown,
 8
        79 Wash. 2d 586 (1971) (en banc) ....................................................................................... 17
 9

10
     Statutes
11

12   Cal. Civ. Code § 3480 ............................................................................................................... 29
13   Cal. Civ. Code § 3493 ............................................................................................................... 34
14   Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 425.10(a)(1), 430.10(e) ........................................................................ 17
15
     Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 338(b).................................................................................................... 49
16
     Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 7.48.130............................................................................................. 29
17
     Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 7.48.210............................................................................................. 34
18

19
     Other Authorities
20

21   First Amendment ................................................................................................................ 19, 44
22
     Cal. Const. art. IX, § 5............................................................................................................... 31
23
     Donald Gifford, Public Nuisance as a Mass Products Liability Tort, 71 U. Cin. L. Rev.
24      741, 831 (2003) ................................................................................................................... 22

25   Fla. Const. art. IX § 1 ................................................................................................................ 31
26   38 Fla. Jur. 2d, Nuisances § 18 .................................................................................................. 17
27   Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821B(1)................................................................ 28, 29, 34, 39
28   Restatement (Third) of Torts § 8 ................................................................................... 26, 27, 39
                                                                             13
                      DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLAINTS
 1   Wash. Const. art. IX §§ 1–2 ...................................................................................................... 31
 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

                                                                          14
                     DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLAINTS
 1                           MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
 2   I.     INTRODUCTION
 3          Plaintiffs1—school districts located in California, Florida, Rhode Island, and Washington (“School
 4   Districts”)—assert public nuisance and negligence claims on the theory that they have incurred increased
 5   expenses as a result of their students’ use of Defendants’ communications services. In particular, they
 6   allege that use of Defendants’ services has caused their students to become distracted, disruptive, or
 7   otherwise more difficult to educate. As a result, the School Districts allege, they incurred increased costs
 8   for items such as confiscating cell phones, remediating acts of vandalism, training employees, modifying
 9   curricula, disciplining students, and communicating with parents. Extending tort liability beyond the
10   alleged victims (here, students) to third parties who allegedly incurred costs to render aid to those alleged
11   victims (here, school districts) would violate settled law. As one state’s highest court recently explained,
12   accepting the School Districts’ theory would create near-limitless liability: “will a sugar manufacturer or
13   the fast food industry be liable for obesity, will an alcohol manufacturer be liable for psychological harms,
14   or will a car manufacturer be liable for health hazards from lung disease to dementia or for air pollution.”
15   State ex rel. Hunter v. Johnson & Johnson, 499 P.3d 719, 731 (Okla. 2021).
16          First, the School Districts’ claims are derivative of harms allegedly suffered by their students. The
17   School Districts’ alleged injuries flow from harms allegedly inflicted upon their students, including the
18   personal-injury plaintiffs. Under settled law, those who incur increased expense as a result of harms
19   inflicted by alleged tortfeasors on third parties may not recover against those alleged tortfeasors.
20          Second, the public nuisance claims fail for multiple reasons, including that (1) they would
21   represent an unprecedented and unwarranted expansion of a traditionally limited doctrine, (2) the School
22   Districts do not allege interference with a public right, and (3) they do not allege a “special injury.”
23          Third, the School Districts’ negligence claims fail because—even assuming that Defendants owe
24   duties to users of their services—they do not owe duties to school districts to protect them from incurring
25   increased expenses in educating students. The claims are also barred by the economic loss doctrine.
26

27
     1
      West Warwick Public Schools (“West Warwick”); School Board of Brevard County (“Brevard”); San
28   Diego Unified School District (“San Diego”); and Vancouver Public Schools (“Vancouver”).

                                                          15
                 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLAINTS
 1          Finally, the School Districts’ claims are barred in whole or part by the statute of limitations.
 2   II.    BACKGROUND
 3          The factual allegations of the four School Districts are essentially identical. 2 Moreover, the School
 4   Districts’ allegations regarding Defendants’ services and alleged wrongdoing are materially
 5   indistinguishable from the allegations made in the Personal Injury Master Complaint. 3 In particular, the
 6   School Districts allege that Defendants’ services cause their students the same harms that the personal
 7   injury plaintiffs alleged Defendants’ services caused them. 4
 8          Unlike the personal injury plaintiffs, however, the School Districts do not allege that they were
 9   harmed by their use of Defendants’ services. Instead, they seek to recover costs they allegedly incurred
10   to address and remedy the adverse effects that Defendants’ services had on their students (who are
11   themselves actual or potential personal injury plaintiffs). Specifically, they seek to recover for “costs and
12   resource expenditures … to address students’ problematic social media use,” which allegedly include:
13   “[d]iverting time and resources from instruction activities to address unauthorized in-classroom use of
14   social media by students”; “[i]ncreasing disciplinary services and hiring additional personnel for
15   disciplinary services in response to increased behavior issues caused by students’ social media use”;
16   “[a]dding additional information technology resources in an attempt to limit students’ access to social
17   media platforms and mitigate risks posed by students’ social media use”; “addressing property damage”
18   caused by students; “notify[ing] parents and guardians of students’ behavioral issues and attendance
19   problems”; [i]nvestigating and responding to threats made against schools”; “[a]dding additional
20   information technology resources”; “[i]nvesting in physical barriers (such as magnetic pouches) to keep
21   students from accessing social media platforms on school property”; “[d]eveloping … teaching plans”;
22   “[p]roviding additional learning support to address students’ declining achievement”; “[t]raining
23   teachers”; and “[h]iring” and “[d]eveloping additional mental health resources.” All Compls. ¶ 808.
24
     2
25     Compare CA Compl., FL Compl., RI Compl., WA Compl. (collectively, “All Compls.”).
     3
26     Compare, e.g., All Compls. ¶ 10 (“Defendants wrote code designed to …. create compulsive use of their
     apps.”) with Personal Injury Master Compl. ¶ 12 (same).
     4
27     Compare, e.g., All Compls. ¶ 16 (alleging that Defendants’ services cause “addiction, compulsive use,
     anxiety, depression, eating disorders, body dysmorphia, self-harm, sexual exploitation, suicidal ideations,
28   other serious diseases and injuries, and suicide itself”) with Personal Injury Master Compl. ¶ 18 (same).

                                                          16
                 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLAINTS
 1   III.   LEGAL STANDARD
 2          A demurrer tests whether a complaint states “facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and
 3   concise language.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 425.10(a)(1), 430.10(e); Doe II v. MySpace Inc., 175 Cal.
 4   App. 4th 561, 566 (2009). In ruling on a demurrer, a court should not accept contentions, deductions, or
 5   conclusions of law. See State ex rel. Bowen v. Bank of Am. Corp., 126 Cal. App. 4th 225, 240 (2005).
 6   IV.    ARGUMENT
 7                  The School Districts’ Alleged Injuries Are Too Remote To Sustain Cognizable
                    Public Nuisance or Negligence Claims.
 8
            Through their negligence and public nuisance claims, the School Districts seek compensation for
 9
     their alleged “expenditure and diversion of significant resources to address students’ addiction to social
10
     media and related issues resulting from Defendants’ wrongful conduct.” All Compls. ¶ 29. These alleged
11
     injuries flow entirely from harms allegedly suffered by students. Put another way, “without any injury to
12
     [their students], [the School Districts] would not have incurred the [alleged] additional expenses.” Ass’n
13
     of Wash. Pub. Hosp. Districts v. Philip Morris Inc. (“Wash. Hosp. Dist.”), 241 F.3d 696, 702 (9th Cir.
14
     2001) (dismissing hospitals’ claims, including nuisance, against tobacco companies for increased health
15
     expenses of patients’ smoking-related illnesses). Such derivative injuries are too “indirect and as a
16
     consequence too remote, as a matter of law, to support recovery.” Laborers Loc. 17 Health & Benefit
17
     Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., 191 F.3d 229, 236 (2d Cir. 1999), as amended (Aug. 18, 1999) (similar).
18
                    1.     Claims That Are Derivative of Third Party Harms Are Not Cognizable.
19
            The School Districts’ claims do not result directly from any of Defendants’ alleged conduct.
20
     Rather, the School Districts’ harms derive from the alleged harms suffered by third parties—their students.
21
     Because the School Districts’ alleged injuries are too remote to be attributed to Defendants’ alleged
22
     actions, they fail as a matter of law to plead proximate causation. 5 Indeed, the School Districts’ alleged
23

24

25
     5
       Proximate causation is an essential element of the School Districts’ claims. Zukowsky v. Brown, 79
26   Wash. 2d 586, 599 (1971) (en banc) (“Causation is … a necessary element to a prima facie case in tort.”);
     see Melton v. Boustred, 183 Cal. App. 4th 521, 542 (2010) (“elements of a cause of action for public
27   nuisance include ... causation”); State v. Lead Indus., Ass’n, Inc., 951 A.2d 428, 450 (R.I. 2008)
     (“Causation is a basic requirement in any public nuisance action.”); 38 Fla. Jur. 2d, Nuisances § 18
28   (“causal connection must exist between the defendants and the nuisance complained of”).

                                                         17
                 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLAINTS
 1   injuries do not even satisfy the threshold requirements for standing. 6
 2           As the Supreme Court has articulated, “it is a well established principle of the common law that in
 3   all cases of loss, we are to attribute it to the proximate cause, and not to any remote cause.” Bank of Am.
 4   Corp. v. City of Miami, Fla., 581 U.S. 189, 201 (2017) (cleaned up). Accordingly, a “plaintiff who
 5   complain[s] of harm flowing merely from the misfortunes visited upon a third person by the defendant’s
 6   acts ... stand[s] at too remote a distance to recover” because there is no “direct relation between the injury
 7   asserted and the injurious conduct alleged.” Holmes v. Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 268–69 (1992).
 8   The direct injury requirement “wisely limit[s] [recovery] to those situations where the chain of causation
 9   leading to damages is not complicated by the intervening agency of third parties ... from whom the
10   plaintiffs’ injuries derive.”7 Laborers Loc. 17, 191 F.3d at 240; see also, e.g., City & Cnty. of San
11   Francisco v. Philip Morris, Inc., 957 F. Supp. 1130, 1143 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (city and county “unable to
12   state a typical negligence claim due to the derivative nature of their alleged injuries” regarding costs of
13
     6
14     Standing is a “threshold element required to state a cause of action.” Martin v. Bridgeport Comty. Assn.,
     Inc., 173 Cal. App. 4th 1024, 1031 (2009); see Giuffre v. Edwards, 226 So. 3d 1034, 1038 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
15   App. 2017) (“Any litigant must demonstrate that he or she has standing to invoke the power of the court
     ….”); McKenna v. Williams, 874 A.2d 217, 225 (R.I. 2005) (“[P]laintiffs must have standing to bring this
16   action[.]”); Wash. State Hous. Fin. Comm’n v. Nat’l Homebuyers Fund, Inc., 193 Wash. 2d 704, 711
     (2019) (“Standing generally refers to a particular party’s right to bring a legal claim.”).
17   7
       While these principles were articulated in Holmes in the context of proximate cause as an element of
18   standing under the federal RICO statute, see Laborers Loc. 17, 191 F.3d at 234, “[t]he proximate cause
     test for federal antitrust and RICO standing is the common law proximate cause test,” Wash. Hosp. Dist.,
19   241 F.3d at 707. Accordingly, courts have applied the Holmes principles to dismiss state tort claims on
     proximate cause grounds. See, e.g., United Food & Com. Workers Unions, Emps. Health & Welfare Fund
20   v. Philip Morris, Inc., 223 F.3d 1271, 1274 & n.7 (11th Cir. 2000) (noting “the principles of proximate
     cause in federal RICO and antitrust cases are borrowed largely from the general common law of proximate
21   cause,” and applying Holmes to dismiss state tort and conspiracy claims); Laborers Loc. 17, 191 F.3d at
     242 (the Holmes “principles also apply in general terms to the fraud and special duty causes of action
22   asserted by plaintiffs under New York common law”); City of Philadelphia v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 277
     F.3d 415, 423 (3d Cir. 2002) (applying Holmes to proximate cause analysis of state negligence claims);
23   Cnty. of Cook v. Philip Morris, Inc., 353 Ill. App. 3d 55, 60–66, (2004) (applying the Holmes “‘direct-
     injury’ test” to dismiss Illinois tort claims).
24   Some courts have also applied the same principles