# Reale v. Google LLC

> District Court, N.D. California · September 15, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10072911

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** September 15, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10072911

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL REALE, Case No. 22-cv-00562-VC

Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
v. DISMISS

GOOGLE LLC, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 66
Defendants.

The motion to dismiss the second amended complaint is granted. The monopolization
claim under section 2 of the Sherman Act is dismissed because Reale fails to allege an antitrust
injury resulting from anticompetitive conduct. 15 U.S.C. § 2. See Federal Trade Commission v.
Qualcomm Incorporated, 969 F.3d 974, 990 (9th Cir. 2020). Removing Reale’s videos from
YouTube on the basis that they violated the platform’s Terms of Service was not anticompetitive
conduct. And any injury Reale suffered as a result of the removal was not “of the type the
antitrust laws were intended to prevent” because he was not a competitor of YouTube nor was he
overcharged for goods or services. City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, 20 F.4th 441, 456 (9th
Cir. 2021).
The dismissal is without leave to amend. Reale has twice failed to adequately state a
monopolization claim, and further leave to amend would be futile. Reale cannot plead that the
removal of two of his videos from YouTube constituted anticompetitive conduct or caused any
harm to competition in any market.
Having dismissed Reale’s federal claim, the Court again declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). This case
remains at an early stage, and concerns over comity, fairness, convenience, and judicial economy
continue to weigh against keeping it in federal court. See Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill,
484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September _15_, 2022 : —
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10072911. Public record. Not legal advice.